Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 253–265 | Cite as

Increasing Cognitive Load to Facilitate Lie Detection: The Benefit of Recalling an Event in Reverse Order

  • Aldert Vrij
  • Samantha A. Mann
  • Ronald P. Fisher
  • Sharon Leal
  • Rebecca Milne
  • Ray Bull
Original Article

Abstract

In two experiments, we tested the hypotheses that (a) the difference between liars and truth tellers will be greater when interviewees report their stories in reverse order than in chronological order, and (b) instructing interviewees to recall their stories in reverse order will facilitate detecting deception. In Experiment 1, 80 mock suspects told the truth or lied about a staged event and did or did not report their stories in reverse order. The reverse order interviews contained many more cues to deceit than the control interviews. In Experiment 2, 55 police officers watched a selection of the videotaped interviews of Experiment 1 and made veracity judgements. Requesting suspects to convey their stories in reverse order improved police observers’ ability to detect deception and did not result in a response bias.

Keywords

Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception Lie detection Cognitive load 

References

  1. Akehurst, L., & Vrij, A. (1999). Creating suspects in police interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beattie, G. W. (1981). A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 243–248.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, G. E., Peters, G. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1972). On the locus of the divided attention effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 315–320.Google Scholar
  4. Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review, 64, 205–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truths and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Interviewing and Offender Profiling, 2, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & DeLeo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and nonverbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bruce, V., Bonner, L., Longbotham, S., & Doyle, C. (2002). Development of gaze aversion as disengagement of visual information. Developmental Psychology, 38, 438–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory and Cognition, 33, 727–733.Google Scholar
  12. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York, NJ: W. W. Norton. (Reprinted in 1992 and 2001).Google Scholar
  13. Ekman, P. (1997). Deception, lying, and demeanor. In D. F. Halpern & A. E. Voiskounsky (Eds.), States of mind: American and post-soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psychology (pp. 93–105). New York, NJ: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 22, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  16. Geiselman, R. E, & Callot, R. (1990). Reverse and forward order recall of script based text. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. A. E., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York, NJ: Double day.Google Scholar
  22. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interrogations: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communication Monographs, 47, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston, W. A., Greenberg, S. N., Fisher, R. P., & Martin, D. W. (1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 164–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahana, M. J. (1996). Associate retrieval processes in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 24, 103–109.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A survey of its forensic effectiveness. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Köhnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology (pp. 257–282). London, Great Britain: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 5, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mann, S., & Vrij, A. (2006). Police officers’ judgements of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioural control in real life police interviews. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Masip, J., Sporer, S., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCornack, S. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2003). Does the cognitive interview help children to resist the effects of suggestive interviewing? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schweitzer, M. E., Brodt, S. E., & Croson, R. T. A. (2002). Seeing and believing: Visual access and the strategic use of deception. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 258–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, V. L., & Clark, H. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F. D., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 2849–2853.Google Scholar
  44. Spence, S. A., Hunter, M. D., Farrow, T. F. D., Green, R. D., Leung, D. H., Hughes, C. J., & Ganesan, V. (2004). A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 359, 1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strömwall. L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 229-250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Strömwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vrij, A. (1995). Behavioral correlates of deception in a simulated police interview. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 129, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
  50. Vrij, A. (2004). Invited article: Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vrij, A. (2006). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vrij, A. (in press). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
  54. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001a). People’s insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001b). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (in press). Increasing cognitive load in interviews to detect deceit. In B. Milne, S. Savage, & T. Williamson (Eds.), International developments in investigative interviewing. Uffculme: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2003). Deception detection. In P. W. Halligan, C. Bass, & D. A. Oakley (Eds.), Malingering and illness deception (pp. 348-362). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006a). An empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 329–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006b). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style: Individual Differences in respondents’ experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, published online.Google Scholar
  68. Vrij, A., Semin, G. R., & Bull, R. (1996). Insight into behaviour during deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 544-562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1992). Cross-cultural police-citizen interactions: The influence of race, beliefs and nonverbal communication on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1546–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person-to-person about live events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. White, C. H., & Burgoon, J. K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversations. Human Communication Research, 27, 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–57). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldert Vrij
    • 1
  • Samantha A. Mann
    • 1
  • Ronald P. Fisher
    • 2
  • Sharon Leal
    • 1
  • Rebecca Milne
    • 1
  • Ray Bull
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Florida International University North MiamiUSA
  3. 3.University of Leicester LeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations