A cognitive approach to elicit verbal and non-verbal cues to deceit

Contribution: 
Conference proceedings / talk
Keywords: 
iIIRG
Deception
non-verbal cues
verbal cues
interviewing techniques
meta-analysis
Reference: 
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. (2013). A cognitive approach to elicit verbal and non-verbal cues to deceit. Paper presented at the iIIRG 2013, Maastricht, NL.
Summary / Abstract: 

Notes: Nonverbal and verbal cues to deception are non-reliable (dePaulo et al., 2003). Meta analysis of deception cues - Bond and dePaulo, 2006. Anxiety based techniques - liars are more nervous than true tellers (no basis in research for this!). If the stakes are higher the cues will appear (Eckmann). Ask questions that are more difficult for liars than truth tellers (Vrij says has never claimed that).

--------Imposing cognitive load - liars are depleted already because lying requires resources already. 

1. Reverse order technique.

Vrij, Mann, Fisher, Leal, Milne and bull (2008) - demonstrate this effect. 12% increase in accuracy (46% -> 58%).

2. Use a secondary task (like drive a car). SELF-REGULATION

Encourage truth tellers to say more. Liars may not be able to say more (don't know what to say or fear being implausible).

3. Unexpected questions approach - prepared lies are more difficult to detect (DePaulo et al., 2003), and liars do prepare themselves, so if you ask questions that make perfect sense in a situation; but are not expected, that destroys the preparation.
Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Junn....

23 cognitive load studies

Improvement from 58% to 71% (a good lie detector also finds truth.)

------

Liars cannot answer "I don't know."

------