Abstract
Research has shown that the comparable truth baseline technique outperforms the small talk with respect to the elicitation of cues to deception. However, their impact on observers’ accuracy has not been evaluated yet. In this experiment, participants (N = 74) watched ten interviews where senders either lied or told the truth about a set of tasks. Half of the interviews were conducted with a comparable truth baseline, the other half with a small talk baseline. As predicted, results showed that observers in the comparable truth baseline condition outperformed participants in the small talk baseline condition in terms of total accuracy rates. The article sheds light on the impact of the two baseline techniques in distinguishing truth-tellers from liars and discourages the use of a small talk baseline. It also provides insights for future studies.
Key words: baseline technique, comparable truth, deception detection, interviewing techniques, observers’ accuracy, small talk, veracity assessment
Introduction
Research has shown that people’s accuracy in assessing truthfulness and deceit is low (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Vrij, 2008). Bond and DePaulo’s (2006) meta-analysis including almost 25,000 observers found a 54% accuracy rate, whereby 50% could be achieved by chance. In addition, accuracy of deception judgments is unrelated to confidence in one’s own judgments (DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck, 1997), suggesting that people have no insight into their own competence. Additionally, people from whom one should expect a higher accuracy, such as police officers, are no more accurate than are laypeople (Bond & DePaulo, 2006).
To explain the low accuracy rates, it has been argued that cues to deception are faint and unreliable (Vrij, 2008). DePaulo et al. (2003), in one of the most comprehensive meta-analyses on cues to deception, have found that effect sizes for behavioural and verbal differences between truth and lie telling are small, with an average effect size of Cohen’s d = .25 for the most diagnostic cues (Vrij & Granhag, 2012). Consequently, it should not be surprising that observers’ accuracy is low, as having weak cues to rely on when making judgments makes the judgment itself difficult (Hartwig & Bond, 2011). It is for this reason that academics are now focusing on interviewing techniques aiming at enhancing differences between telling the truth and lying (Granhag & Vrij, 2010; Vrij, 2014; Vrij & Granhag, 2012). The rationale behind this is that if truth-tellers and liars do not differ much, it is desirable to find a way to make such differences more evident. Academics have explored several approaches that did indeed augment differences between truth-tellers and liars, including the strategic use of evidence (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015) and cognitive credibility assessment (Vrij, 2015; Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2017).
There is an alternative interviewing strategy often proposed within police forces: the baseline technique (Ewens, Vrij, Jang, & Jo, 2014; Vrij, 2016). The underlying idea is that since there are interpersonal differences in behaviour, an interviewer should start by obtaining a behavioural baseline of the interviewee through observing the responses in chitchat while answering trivial questions. Then, while the interview progresses, the interviewer should compare this baseline behaviour with interviewees’ responses to target questions (questions related to the topic under investigation). If any difference arises, then one may conclude that the interviewee is lying (Frank, Yarbrough, & Ekman, 2006).
The use of the baseline technique in this manner is problematic. People’s nonverbal behaviour is related to stakes and topic of conversation (Vrij, 2008), and in terms of stakes and topic of conversation the baseline response and the target response are not comparable to each other. The result is that both liars and truth-tellers are likely to change their behaviour when baseline and target responses are compared (Caso, Maricchiolo, Bonaiuto, Vrij, & Mann, 2006; Gnisci, Caso, & Vrij, 2010; Moston & Engelberg, 1993). Ewens, Vrij, Jang, and Jo (2014) empirically tested the efficacy of this type of baselining, which they labelled “small talk”. When interviewing their participants, they started by asking an initial small talk baseline question, followed by several target questions. It was found that both truth-tellers and liars changed their behaviour during the interview. Therefore, they concluded that the small talk baseline in not an effective strategy to detect deception.
Ewens et al. (2014) also noted that there is a different type of baseline that may work better: the comparable truth baseline. They described it as follows: “Comparable means that the baseline the investigator uses must be similar in content, context, stakes, and cognitive and emotional involvement to investigative questions” (Vrij, 2016, p. 1114). Vrij and Mann (2001) gave a real-life example of this type of baseline. They compared several behaviours displayed by a suspect in a murder case in different phases of the police interrogation. The suspects was interrogated about his activities during the day of the murder and provided a detailed answer covering the entire day. Police investigated his whereabouts and could verify only his morning activities. Eventually, it became known that he had met the victim in the afternoon and had killed her later. Vrij and Mann (2001) analysed the videotaped interrogation and found that the suspect did show a difference in his behaviour when he discussed his activities in the morning (truth) compared to the afternoon and evening (lie). Their results therefore gave credit to the potential effectiveness of the comparable truth baseline.
To date there has only been one experimental study in which comparable truth and small talk baselines were compared (Palena, Caso, Vrij, & Orthey, 2018). In the comparable truth baseline condition, the baseline question referred to three tasks that the participants performed. All participants had to answer the baseline question truthfully. Then, in the target phase of the interview, half of the participants told the truth and the other half lied about three additional, but similar, tasks. In the small talk baseline condition, the baseline question referred to personal information about the interviewee (e.g.: the last year spent as a student). Again, all participants had to answer the baseline question truthfully. The target questions referred to the same three additional tasks as for participants in the comparable truth baseline condition. Again, half of the participants responded to this target question truthfully, whereas the other half lied. The authors compared the baseline and target responses in terms of similarity for both nonverbal and verbal behaviour. Truth-tellers’ levels of similarity did not differ from those of liars in the small talk baseline condition; the truth-tellers’ levels of similarity were higher than those of liars in the comparable truth baseline condition, but only for spatial details. This study thus replicated Ewens et al.’s (2014) study that a small talk baseline does not work. Second, it showed that nonverbal baselining is problematic, but that verbal baselining may be more effective.
However, verbal baselining is not straightforward either, as speech content is affected by the topic of conversation (Vrij, 2008). For example, in Ewens’ et al.’s (2014) study, the baseline concerned the informed consent form, whereas the target phase concerned the actual/pretended job. Consequently, the speech content of the two phases is expected to be different regardless of veracity, as the interviewee talks about two different topics.
Palena et al. (2018) did not test whether the differences in speech content would be clear to lay observers. Bond & DePaulo’s meta-analysis (2006) underlined that when observers had previously been exposed to senders’ truthful baselines, their accuracy improved. However, such previous exposure cannot be considered a baseline obtained through strategic questioning. Rather, since observers had the opportunity to become familiar with the sender, it was simply possibly the result of “baseline familiarity” (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Brandt, Miller, & Hocking, 1980, 1982). Feeley, deTurck, and Young (1995) provided their participants with zero, one, two or four truthful baseline exposures and found that there was a positive linear relationship between the amount of familiarity with the sender and observers’ accuracy. Results about the positive effects of baseline familiarity are important in personal and intimate relationships, but baseline familiarity may be difficult to achieve during police investigations, as suspects and investigators are often strangers to each other and there is often the need to interview the suspect as soon as possible. Hence, it is more likely that police officers will try to obtain baselines with specific questioning rather than through increased familiarity.
Based on the literature presented above and expecting better efficacy of the comparable truth over the small talk baseline, we made the following predictions.
H1: Observers in the comparable truth baseline condition will reach higher overall accuracy rates than those in the small talk baseline condition.
H2: Observers in the comparable truth baseline condition will also reach higher accuracy rates for truth (Hypothesis 2a) and lie detection (Hypothesis 2b).
Material and methods
Participants
A total of 74 participants (56 women and 18 men) between 19 and 51 years of age (M = 25.67, SD = 6.14) took part in the experiment. One participant (a male) was excluded from the analyses as the person did not follow the instructions. This left us with a total sample of 73 participants, 37 of whom were allocated to the comparable truth condition and the remaining 36 to the small talk condition.
Design
The experiment was based on a two-group comparison. The type of baseline (comparable truth vs. small talk) was the between-subjects factor. Total, truth and lie accuracy rates and d′ and β values were the dependent variables.
Stimulus material
Twenty video stimuli were used for this experiment. All senders portrayed in the videos performed a mission that consisted of a series of tasks. The mission started with the participant receiving an envelope from the experimenter, which contained a PC password. The experimenter then left the room. As soon as the participant had logged on to the PC, one file, a Word document named “Read Me”, appeared on the desktop. This file informed the participant that s/he had now to look for the CD-ROM that was located inside the only backpack available in the room. The Word document ended informing the participant to watch the video file recorded on this CD-ROM. This showed a man telling the participant to look again into the backpack to search for a key. The man also explained that the key served to open a safe-deposit box that was in the room. Once the participant had opened the box, s/he found additional instructions asking them to send an e-mail to a specific address, to exit the room, and to wait for someone to come. This person was actually a confederate, and the meeting served to split the mission into two subsets. Everything that had happened before this meeting was the comparable truth baseline section. Everything that happened after the meeting was the target section of the interview. The confederate gave a newspaper to the participant and informed him/her that it contained further instructions. The confederate then left the room. The instruction guided the participant to a room adjacent to the first one and informed them that they had to look for a pen-drive, which was attached to a coat hook. Once found, the participant had to take it and swap it with another pen-drive, which was hidden inside a book at the bottom of the wardrobe located in the room. The instruction also told the participant to leave the newspaper with the instruction near that book and to keep the first pen-drive with them for the rest of the experiment. The participant then came back to the first room and waited for the interviewer. Of the 20 videos, 10 were used for the comparable truth condition. Here, for the baseline questioning, the participants reported everything that had happened before the meeting with the confederate. For the target questioning, the participant reported everything that had happened after the meeting with the confederate. The remaining 10 videos were used for the small talk condition. Here, the baseline questioning consisted of participants providing personal information (e.g.: describe their last year as a worker), whereas the target questioning was identical to that for participants in the comparable truth condition. That is, participants in the small talk condition also had to report everything that had happened after the meeting with the confederate for the target questioning. All senders were honest in the baseline phase, whereas half of them were instructed to tell the truth and the other half to lie when responding to the target questioning.
Each video sequence was produced as follows: a black screen with a white text indicating “Baseline” appeared and lasted for 3 s. The first sender then appeared on the screen and started answering the baseline question. Once s/he finished, a second black screen with the text “Target” appeared, also lasting 3 s. Then the first sender started answering the target question. Once s/he had finished answering, another black screen appeared and lasted for 30 s. In this time-window, participants had to make their veracity decisions. When the 30 s had expired, a high-frequency sound warned the participant that the time to evaluate the first sender was over and that the second sender was going to appear on the screen. This sequence was repeated until the 10 videos had been seen. Participants expressed their veracity decisions answering the following question: “Do you believe the interviewee was…”. The answer alternatives were “Telling the truth” and “Lying”. Senders’ veracity status was counterbalanced, with each 10-target tape consisting of 5 truth-tellers and 5 liars.
Procedure
Upon the arrival, participants met the experimenter and were briefed about the aim of the study. They were informed that they were going to watch some interviews that were divided into two sections: A baseline section and a target section. Observers where informed that the senders were always honest in the baseline section whereas they may have been either telling the truth or lying in the target section. Observers were asked to decide whether each sender was telling the truth or lying in the target section. They were told that they needed to pay attention to (non)verbal deviations from the baseline to make their decision. No training was offered. Assignment to the two baseline conditions was random. The participants were also informed that there were more answer sheets (twenty) than the actual amount of stimuli and also that truth and lie telling may be balanced in different amounts. Such instructions were given to prevent participants making decisions based on balancing expectations rather than lie detection task decisions. The participant also read and signed a consent form and were offered an additional point for a university exam if they performed well. Eventually, all participants received the point, regardless. Once they confirmed they understood the instructions, they were left alone in a room with a computer and the answer sheets. They were also instructed to exit the room once they completed their task. They then started watching the stimuli. Each participant was shown the tapes individually.
Results
A t test with type of Baseline as factor and overall accuracy rates as the dependent variable revealed that participants in the comparable truth condition were more accurate (M = 56.49, SD = 18.74, 95% CI [50.24, 62.73]) than those in the small talk condition (M = 47.41, SD = 18.62, 95% CI [41.11, 53.71]), t(71) = 2.076, p = .042, Cohen’s d = .49, supporting Hypothesis 1. One t test, again with type of Baseline as factor, showed no difference between conditions for truth accuracy, t(71) = 1.200, p = .22, Cohen’s d = .28, but showed a difference for lie accuracy, t(71) = 1.990, p = .050, Cohen’s d = .47, with the comparable truth baseline condition resulting in a higher lie accuracy rate than the small talk baseline condition (Table 1). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was not supported but Hypothesis 2b received support.
Table 1.
Comparable truth |
Small talk |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | CI | M | SD | CI | |
Truth accuracy | 57.84 | 30.10 | [47.80, 67.88] | 49.44 | 29.66 | [39.41, 59.48] |
Lie accuracy | 55.14 | 20.22 | [48.49, 61.88] | 45.42 | 21.49 | [38.14, 52.69] |
Further analyses (see Table 2) showed that in the comparable truth baseline condition the total accuracy rate was significantly above chance. No other accuracy rate differed from chance and only lie accuracy rate differed from the accuracy rates found in Bond and DePaulo’s (2006) meta-analysis. In the small talk baseline condition, none of the accuracy rates differed from chance and the total and truth accuracy rates were significantly lower than those found in Bond and DePaulo’s (2006) meta-analysis.
Table 2.
Baseline | Accuracy | Test value: meta-analyses average scores |
Test value: chance (50%) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | p | d | t | p | d | ||
Comparable truth | Total | .80 | .42 | .13 | 2.105 | .04 | .34 |
Truth | −.64 | .52 | −.10 | 1.584 | .12 | .25 | |
Lie | 2.447 | .02 | .39 | 1.544 | .13 | .25 | |
Small talk | Total | −2.124 | .04 | −.34 | −.83 | .40 | −.13 |
Truth | −2.338 | .02 | −.38 | −.11 | .91 | −.01 | |
Lie | −.44 | .66 | −.07 | −1.279 | .20 | −.21 |
aBond and DePaulo (2006). Total accuracy, 54%; truth accuracy, 61%; lie accuracy, 47%.
Signal detection analyses
It has been suggested to use Signal Detection Theory to analyse the accuracy of deception judgments in more detail (Jupe, Akehurst, Vernham, & Allen, 2016; Meissner & Kassin, 2002). Therefore, participants’ performance was assessed via discrimination accuracy, using d′ values, and responding bias, using β values. The former is a measure of sensitivity expressed in standard deviations units (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). Values of 0 indicate an inability to distinguish between the signal and noise: in our case, liars from truth-tellers. Values greater than 0 indicate that the observers are indeed able to distinguish truthful from lying senders.
The β value is a measure of response bias (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999) whereby values of 1 indicate no response bias, values greater than 1 indicate a truth bias, and values below 1 indicate a lie bias.
A first t test with baseline condition as factor and d′ values as the dependent variable showed that observers in the comparable truth baseline (M = .35, SD = 1.00, 95% CI [.02, .68]) were better than those in the small talk baseline (M = −.13, SD = .99, 95% CI [−.47, .20]) at discriminating truth-tellers from liars, t(71) = 2.079, p = .040, Cohen’s d = .49. This, again, supports Hypothesis 1.
A between-subjects t test on β values showed that participants in the comparable truth condition (M = 1.27, SD = .44, 95% CI [1.12, 1.42]) did not differ from those in the small talk condition (M = 1.21, SD = .48, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]) in their response bias, t(71) = .59, p = .55, Cohen’s d = .14. Additionally, β values for participants in both baseline conditions were significantly greater than 1, indicating that all participants were truth-biased, regardless of the type of baseline exposure (Table 3).
Table 3.
Comparable truth |
Small talk |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | p | d | t | p | d | |
d′ | 2.129 | .04 | .34 | −.817 | .42 | −.13 |
β | 3.737 | .001 | .60 | 2.629 | .01 | .43 |
Discussion
In this experiment, we found that observers in the comparable truth condition were more accurate in distinguishing truth-tellers from liars than were observers in the small talk condition. In addition, observers in the comparable truth condition performed significantly better than chance levels, whereas observers in the small talk condition did not. This shows the benefit of using a comparable truth baseline compared to a small talk baseline. Our results discourage the use of a small talk baseline technique, the technique used by practitioners (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013) and advocated by some academics (Frank et al., 2006).
It should be noted that, although better than the small talk baseline, the comparable truth baseline is still not ready to be implemented in real life. It needs to be improved and should focus on verbal content only (Vrij, 2016). Verbal content is more diagnostic than nonverbal behaviour (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and it may be easier to establish verbal than nonverbal baselines, as Palena et al.’s (2018) study suggests. Future efforts can improve the comparable truth baseline technique, integrating it with the techniques used for strategic questioning. For example, the interviewer can start the interview with the baseline approach and then employ strategic questioning using the already available within-subjects comparisons techniques reported by Vrij (2016), such as the reverse order technique (Ewens, Vrij, Mann, & Leal, 2016; Vrij, Leal, Mann, & Fisher, 2012) and the verifiability approach (Nahari, Vrij, & Fisher, 2014; Vrij, Nahari, Isitt, & Leal, 2016). In the reverse order technique, the interviewee is first asked to report the story in chronological order. Then, s/he is asked to report the same story from the end to the beginning, which typically results in truth-tellers reporting more reminiscences but fewer contradictions than liars (Vrij, 2016). According to the verifiability approach, liars try not to report details that can be verified by an investigator. Consequently, the proportion of verifiable details [verifiable detail/(verifiable and unverifiable details combined)] is higher for truth-tellers than it is for liars (Nahari et al., 2014; Vrij, 2016).
Another possibility is to create a (semi)structured interview protocol that incorporates a baseline technique. A good example is the Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID, Colwell et al., 2007). This protocol starts with a baseline question coupled with rapport building and is based on the concept of Differential Recall Enhancement (DRE), whereby it is thought that the use of mnemonics techniques and forced choice questions will result in truth-tellers reporting more new details than liars. Colwell et al. (2007, 2013) used a small talk baseline (the last meal someone had or the first day of a semester). Future studies may explore how the ACID technique performs when a comparable truth baseline is used.
Future studies can also account for some of the limitations present in this study. First, the target event represented here is of low stakes. Increase in stakes makes a small talk baseline even less effective, as emotions experienced by the interviewee during the target response – such as fear (of being caught, for the liar and of not being believed, for the truth-teller) – may result in more pronounced differences between the two phases of the interview, regardless of sender’s veracity (Ewens et al., 2014; Palena et al., 2018). Second, our participants did not receive any form of training in truth/lie detection. Therefore, their accuracy may benefit from training, as they would focus on more effective cues to truth/deception. For example, a recent meta-analysis (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2016) explored to what extent different types of training (e.g., in verbal content, nonverbal behaviour, paralinguistic cues, etc.) affected credibility assessments. Their results showed that training, particularly training focusing on speech content, did improve credibility assessments. Third, our sample consisted of university students. It may be worth while to explore how professionals (e.g. police officers) perform when they are exposed to a comparable truth baseline.
Declaration of conflicts of interest
Letizia Caso has declared no conflicts of interest.
Nicola Palena has declared no conflicts of interest.
Aldert Vrij has declared no conflicts of interest.
Augusto Gnisci has declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (the Department of Human and Social Sciences of University of Bergamo) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
References
- Bond Jr., C. F., & DePaulo B. M (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brandt D. R., Miller G. R., & Hocking J. E (1980). The truth‐deception attribution: Effects of familiarity on the ability of observers to detect deception. Human Communication Research, 6(2), 99–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00130.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Brandt D. R., Miller G. R., & Hocking J. E (1982). Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 46(3), 276–290. doi: 10.1080/10570318209374086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Caso L., Maricchiolo F., Bonaiuto M., Vrij A., & Mann S (2006). The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand movements. Journal of Nonverbal behavior, 30(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10919-005-0001-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Colwell K., Hiscock-Anisman C., & Fede J (2013). Assessment criteria indicative of deception: An example of the new paradigm of differential recall enhancement In Cooper B. S., Griesel D., & Ternes M. (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 259–291). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Colwell K., Hiscock-Anisman C. K., Memon A., Taylor L., & Prewett J (2007). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): An integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 167–180. doi: 10.1002/jip.73 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- DePaulo B. M., Charlton K., Cooper H., Lindsay J. J., & Muhlenbruck L (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 346–357. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DePaulo B. M., Lindsay J. L., Malone B. E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., & Cooper H (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ewens S., Vrij A., Jang M., & Jo E (2014). Drop the small talk when establishing baseline behaviour in interviews. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(3), 244–252. doi: 10.1002/jip.1414 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ewens S., Vrij A., Mann S., & Leal S (2016). Using the reverse order technique with non-native speakers or through an interpreter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 242–249. doi: 10.1002/acp.3196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Feeley T. H., deTurck M. A., & Young M. J (1995). Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 160–169. doi: 10.1080/08824099509362052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Frank M. G., Yarbrough J. D., & Ekman P (2006). Investigative interviewing and the detection of deception In Williamson T. (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research and regulation (pp. 229–255). Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Gnisci A., Caso L., & Vrij A (2010). Have you made up your story? The effect of suspicion and liars' strategies on reality monitoring. Applied cognitive psychology, 24(6), 762–773. doi: 10.1002/acp.1584 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Granhag P. A., & Hartwig M (2015). The strategic use of evidence technique: A conceptual overview In Granhag P. A., Vrij A., & Verschuere B. (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 231–251). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Granhag P. A., & Vrij A (2010). Interviewing to detect deception In Granhag P. A. (Ed.), Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and international approaches (pp. 75–93). Collumpton: Willian. [Google Scholar]
- Hartwig M., & Bond C. F Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bullettin, 137(4), 643–459. doi: 10.1037/a0023589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hauch V., Sporer S. L., Michael S. W., & Meissner C. A (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343. doi: 10.1177/0093650214534974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Inbau F. E., Reid J. E., Buckley J. P., & Jayne B. C (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. [Google Scholar]
- Jupe L., Akehurst L., Vernham Z., & Allen J (2016). Teenage offenders' ability to detect deception in their peers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 401–408. doi: 10.1002/acp.3214 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Meissner C. A., & Kassin S. M (2002). "He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moston S., & Engelberg T (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 3, 223–237. doi: 10.1080/10439463.1993.9964670 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Nahari G., Vrij A., & Fisher R. P (2014). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 227–239. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02069.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Palena N., Caso L., Vrij A., & Orthey R (2018). Deception detection through small talk and comparable truth baselines. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 124–132. DOI: 10.1002/jip.1495. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stanislaw H., & Todorov N (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03207704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A. (2014). Interviewing to detect deception. European Psychologist, 19(3), 184–194. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A. (2015). A cognitive approach to lie detection In Granhag P. A., Vrij A., & Verschuere B. (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 205–230). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A. (2016). Baselining as a lie detection method. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 1112–1119. doi: 10.1002/acp.3288 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A., Fisher R. P., & Blank H (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A., & Granhag P. A (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A., Leal S., Mann S., & Fisher R (2012). Imposing cognitive load to elicit cues to deceit: Inducing the reverse order technique naturally. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 579–594. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2010.515987 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A., & Mann S (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187–203. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vrij A., Nahari G., Isitt R., & Leal S (2016). Using the verifiability lie detection approach in an insurance claim setting. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(3), 183–197. doi: 10.1002/jip.1458 [DOI] [Google Scholar]