Detecting Deception by manipulating cognitive load
Vrij (2006)
Traditional arousal-based approach
-Based on the assumption that because of their fear of getting caught, liars will be more
aroused when answering key relevant questions (e.g., did you rob the bank) than when
answering comparison questions
-Theoretically weak because liars do not necessarily show more signs of arousal when
answering key questions
-Another arousal approach to deception is based on the theory that liars will show enhanced
orienting responses when identify essential information about the crime in key questions
(e.g., were your fingerprints found in the car, house, or basement?)
-Limitation: practical difficulties because investigators are required to have specific
knowledge about the crime, as well as sophisticated equipment to measure physiological
responses (e.g., EEG)
Innovative cognitive-load approach
-Lying is cognitively demanding
-This extra cognitive demand is caused by liars having to engage in additional tasks such as
inferring what others think, stick to their story, and controlling their behavior so they do not
come out as liars
- In experimental testing, police officers who viewed videotapes of interviews with suspects
judged that suspects were thinking harder when they lied compared to when they told the
truth. This helped police officers to accurately discriminate between them
-Deceiving is associated with activating executive higher brain centers (e.g., prefrontal
cortex)
Academic Discussion
Meijer (2015)
Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection
-First line of research: cognitive-based lie detection
-Enhances the differences in cognitive load experienced by truth tellers and liars by asking
unanticipated questions, telling the story in reverse order, and strategic use of evidence (i.e.,
late disclosure)
-Although these strategies aim to make lying harder, none of the researchers claimed this
involved ‘increasing the pressure’
-In contrast, research shows that developing a supportive environment encourages truth
tellers to provide more details, while liars normally avoid doing
-Therefore, an information-gathering interview compared to an accusatory style of interview
leads to the most cues to deceit
Vrij (2006)
Traditional arousal-based approach
-Based on the assumption that because of their fear of getting caught, liars will be more
aroused when answering key relevant questions (e.g., did you rob the bank) than when
answering comparison questions
-Theoretically weak because liars do not necessarily show more signs of arousal when
answering key questions
-Another arousal approach to deception is based on the theory that liars will show enhanced
orienting responses when identify essential information about the crime in key questions
(e.g., were your fingerprints found in the car, house, or basement?)
-Limitation: practical difficulties because investigators are required to have specific
knowledge about the crime, as well as sophisticated equipment to measure physiological
responses (e.g., EEG)
Innovative cognitive-load approach
-Lying is cognitively demanding
-This extra cognitive demand is caused by liars having to engage in additional tasks such as
inferring what others think, stick to their story, and controlling their behavior so they do not
come out as liars
- In experimental testing, police officers who viewed videotapes of interviews with suspects
judged that suspects were thinking harder when they lied compared to when they told the
truth. This helped police officers to accurately discriminate between them
-Deceiving is associated with activating executive higher brain centers (e.g., prefrontal
cortex)
Academic Discussion
Meijer (2015)
Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection
-First line of research: cognitive-based lie detection
-Enhances the differences in cognitive load experienced by truth tellers and liars by asking
unanticipated questions, telling the story in reverse order, and strategic use of evidence (i.e.,
late disclosure)
-Although these strategies aim to make lying harder, none of the researchers claimed this
involved ‘increasing the pressure’
-In contrast, research shows that developing a supportive environment encourages truth
tellers to provide more details, while liars normally avoid doing
-Therefore, an information-gathering interview compared to an accusatory style of interview
leads to the most cues to deceit
