Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has expanded dramatically in recent years. Most of it concerns the issue of mistaken identification, not the problem of uncovering deceptive accounts of witnesses, which is the focus of this research. In the literature, a technique for lie detection has been proposed that induces cognitive load on liars by averting their rehearsal of deception: Time Restricted Integrity-Confirmation. The current authors tested it by instructing “witnesses” of actual crime videos to lie or tell the truth to related questions. Each of 145 adults was randomly assigned to a truth telling, an unrehearsed lying, or a rehearsed lying condition. The cognitive cues were response time, answer consistency, eye movements, and pupil dilation. Eye data were gathered with an infrared eye tracker. Truth tellers had the quickest response times and the fewest inconsistencies. Moreover, they generally had more eye movements, suggesting low cognitive loads. Discriminant analyses classified rehearsed liars, unrehearsed liars, and truth tellers up to 69% accurately, with few false positives. Further refinement is warranted.

Keywords

lie detection rehearsal cognition and deception eyewitness testimony

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasi

Urbina

(1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bond

C. F.

Jr. DePaulo

B. M.

(2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.

Bradley

M. T.

Janisse

M. P.

(1979). Pupil size and lie detection. The effect of certainty on detection. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 16, 33-39.

DePaulo

B. M.

Lindsay

J. J.

Malone

B. E.

Muhlenbruck

Charlton

Harris

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.

Dionisio

D. P.

Granholm

Hillix

W. A.

Perrine

W. F.

(2001). Differentiation of deception using pupillary response as an index of cognitive processing. Psychophysiology, 38, 205-211.

Doherty-Sneddon

Bruce

Bonner

Longbotham

Doyle

(2002). Development of gaze aversion as disengagement from visual information. Developmental Psychology, 38, 438-445.

Doherty-Sneddon

Phelps

F. G.

(2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition, 33, 727-733.

Garrett

(2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051-1119.

Garrido

Masip

Herrero

(2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254-275.

10.

Glenberg

A. M.

Schroeder

J. L.

Robertson

D. A.

(1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651-658.

11.

Hartwig

Granhag

P. A.

Stromwall

L. A.

Vrij

(2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429-456.

12.

Heilveil

(1976). Deception and pupil size. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 443-449.

13.

Inbau

F. E.

Reid

J. E.

Buckley

J. P.

Jayne

B. C.

(2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

14.

Landström

Granhag

Hartwig

(2005). Witnesses appearing live versus on video: Effects on observers’ perception, veracity assessments, and memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 913-933.

15.

Littlepage

G. E.

Pineault

M. A.

(1985). Detection of deception of planned and spontaneous communications. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 195-201.

16.

Littlepage

G. E.

Tang

D. W.

Pineault

M. A.

(1986). Nonverbal and content factors in the detection of planned and spontaneous communications. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 439-450.

17.

Loftus

(1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Loftus

E. F.

(2007). Memory distortions: Problems solved and unsolved. In Garry

Hayne

(Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

19.

Lubow

R. E.

Fein

(1996). Pupillary size in response to a visual guilty knowledge test: New technique for the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 164-177.

20.

Lykken

D. T.

(1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

21.

McCarthy

Lee

Itakura

Muir

D.W.

(2006). Cultural display rules drive eye gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 717-722.

22.

National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

23.

O’Hair

H. D.

Cody

M. J.

McLaughlin

M. L.

(1981). Prepared lies, spontaneous lies, Machiavellianism, and nonverbal communication. Human Communication Research, 7, 325-339.

24.

O’Sullivan

Frank

M. G.

Hurley

C M.

(2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 530-538.

25.

Pashler

(1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.

26.

Porter

Yuille

(1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443-458.

27.

Seymour

T. L

Seifert

C. M.

Shafto

M. G.

Mosmann

A. L.

(2000). Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30-37.

28.

Solso

R. L.

(2001). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

29.

Sporer

S. L.

Schwandt

(2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446.

30.

Sporer

S. L.

Schwandt

(2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.

31.

Vrij

(1993). Credibility judgments and detectives: The impact of nonverbal behaviour, social skills and physical characteristics on impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 601-611.

32.

Vrij

(2000). Detecting lies and deceit. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

33.

Vrij

Fisher

Mann

Leal

(2008). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 39-43.

34.

Vrij

Leal

Granhag

P. A.

Mann

Fisher

R. P.

Hillman

Sperry

(2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefits of asking unanticipated questions. Law & Human Behavior, 33, 159-166.

35.

Vrij

Mann

Fisher

Leal

Milne

Bull

(2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 253-265.

36.

Vrij

Mann

Leal

Fisher

(2010). “Look into my eyes”: Can an instruction to maintain eye contract facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime, & Law, 16, 327-348.

37.

Walczyk

J. J.

Mahoney

K. T.

Doverspike

Griffith-Ross

D. A.

(2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 33-49.

38.

Walczyk

J. J.

Roper

Seemann

Humphrey

A. M.

(2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755-774.

39.

Walczyk

J. J.

Schwartz

J. P.

Clifton

Adams

Wei

Zha

(2005). Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141-170.

40.

Walters

S. B.

(1996). Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation. New York, NY: CRC.

41.

Webb

A. K.

Honts

C. R.

Kircher

J. C.

Bernhardt

Cook

A. E.

(2009). Effectiveness of pupil diameter in a probable-lie comparison question test for deception. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 14, 279-292.

42.

Wells

G. L.

Olson

E. A.

(2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.

43.

Zuckerman

DePaulo

B. M.

Rosenthal

(1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York: Academic Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

8.76 MB

LIE Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material