Detecting Deceptive Intentions: Possibilities for Large-Scale Applications

  • Bennett KleinbergEmail author
  • Arnoud Arntz
  • Bruno Verschuere


Most deception detection research looks at the deception about past events (e.g., a crime). From an applied perspective, it is often more relevant to focus on the identification of those people who might have malicious intent regarding an event in the future (e.g., planning an attack). The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of possibilities for large-scale applications to detecting deceptive intentions. We outline a set of criteria that an applied system should meet from a practitioner’s perspective to evaluate deception theories, interviewing approaches, information elicitation methods, and verbal deception cues that may be of use for large-scale applications for prospective airport passenger screening. Our review indicates that (i) the cognition-based deception theory, (ii) the information-gathering interviewing approach, (iii) the unanticipated questions method and the model statement technique, and (iv) verbal cues, especially the verifiability of details and stylometric cues, are most the promising. We conclude this chapter with an illustration of how this combination of elements can be operationalized.


Deception detection Malicious intent Passenger screening Applied deception research 


  1. Airports Council International. (2016). Year to date passenger traffic, December 2015. Retrieved from
  2. Bachenko, J., Fitzpatrick, E., & Schonwetter, M. (2008). Verification and implementation of language-based deception indicators in civil and criminal narratives. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics—Volume 1 (pp. 41–48). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from
  3. Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN: Using an example statement with truth tellers and liars. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151–163. Scholar
  4. Booth, R. (2013). Fake bomb detector conman jailed for 10 years. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  5. Brackmann, N., Otgaar, H., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., & Sauerland, M. (2017). Testing a new approach to improve recall in different ages: Providing witnesses with a model statement. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 131–142. Scholar
  6. Debey, E., Verschuere, B., & Crombez, G. (2012). Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect. Acta Psychologica, 140(2), 133–141. Scholar
  7. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. Scholar
  8. Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An Empirical Evaluation of Intelligence-gathering Interrogation Techniques from the United States Army Field Manual: Intelligence-gathering interrogation techniques. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 867–875. Scholar
  10. Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 33–41. Scholar
  11. Feng, V. W., & Hirst, G. (2013). Detecting deceptive opinions with profile compatibility. In IJCNLP (pp. 338–346). Retrieved from
  12. Fenn, E., McGuire, M., Langben, S., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2015). A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. Retrieved from
  13. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 722–727. Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick, E., Bachenko, J., & Fornaciari, T. (2015). Automatic detection of verbal deception (Vol. 8). Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Retrieved from
  16. Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2013). Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21(3), 303–340. Scholar
  17. Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2014). Identifying fake Amazon reviews as learning from crowds. Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from
  18. Gallini, B. (2010). Police “science” in the interrogation room: Seventy years of pseudo-psychological interrogation methods to obtain inadmissible confessions. Hastings Law Journal, 61, 529–577.
  19. Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Information gathering in law enforcement and intelligence settings: Advancing theory and practice: Effective human intelligence gathering techniques. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 815–816. Scholar
  20. Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 47–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. (2016). Interrogation best practices report. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from
  22. Honts, C., & Hartwig, M. (2014). Credibility assessment at portals. In D. C. Raskin, C. Honts, & J. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 37–62). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Inbau, F. E. (Ed.). (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. K., Bush, J. G., & Mitchell, K. J. (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people’s memories. Social Cognition, 16(2), 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85. Scholar
  26. Jupe, L. M., Leal, S., Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2017). Applying the verifiability approach in an international airport setting. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(8), 812–825. Scholar
  27. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions, risk factors, and recommendations: Looking ahead. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 49–52. Scholar
  28. 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(2), 33–67. Scholar
  29. Kleinberg, B., Mozes, M., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Using named entities for computer-automated verbal deception detection. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(3), 714–723. Scholar
  30. Kleinberg, B., Nahari, G., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2017). An investigation on the detectability of deceptive intent about flying through verbal deception detection. Collabra: Psychology. Scholar
  31. Kleinberg, B., Nahari, G., & Verschuere, B. (2016). Using the verifiability of details as a test of deception: A conceptual framework for the automation of the verifiability approach. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT (pp. 18–25). Retrieved from
  32. Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. P. (2015). You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Carpenter, C. J. (2018). A critical look at meta-analytic evidence for the cognitive approach to lie detection: A re-examination of Vrij, Fisher, and Blank (2017). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 7–19. Scholar
  34. Loney, D. M., & Cutler, B. L. (2016). Coercive interrogation of eyewitnesses can produce false accusations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(1), 29–36. Scholar
  35. Luyckx, K., & Daelemans, W. (2008). Authorship attribution and verification with many authors and limited data. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 513–520). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  36. Mac Giolla, E., Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2014). Discriminating between true and false intentions. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception (pp. 155–173). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Scholar
  37. Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 99–122. Scholar
  38. Meijer, E. H., & Verschuere, B. (2010). The polygraph and the detection of deception. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(4), 325–338. Scholar
  39. Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., et al. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486. Scholar
  40. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340–372. Scholar
  41. Mihalcea, R., & Strapparava, C. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers (pp. 309–312). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from
  42. Morris, S., Jones, M., & Booth, R. (2013). The “magic” bomb detector that endangered lives all over the world. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  43. Nahari, G., Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., & Vernham, Z. (2014). Did somebody see it? Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claim interviews: The verifiability approach in insurance interviews. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(3), 237–243. Scholar
  44. Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality monitoring. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(6), 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014a). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227–239. Scholar
  46. Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures Facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies: The verifiability approach and countermeasures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 122–128. Scholar
  47. Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Goseel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ormerod, T. C., & Dando, C. J. (2015). Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 76–84. Scholar
  49. Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Negative deceptive opinion spam. In HLT-NAACL (pp. 497–501). Retrieved from
  50. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies—Volume 1 (pp. 309–319). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from
  51. Panasiti, M. S., Cardone, D., Pavone, E. F., Mancini, A., Merla, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2016). Thermal signatures of voluntary deception in ecological conditions. Scientific Reports, 6(1).
  52. Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Retrieved from
  53. Perry, M., & Gilbey, A. (2011). The screening of passengers by observation techniques programme. Aviation Security International, 17(3), 12.Google Scholar
  54. Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Effects of age and gender on blogging. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs (Vol. 6, pp. 199–205).Google Scholar
  55. Schubert, S. (2006). A look tells all. Scientific American. Retrieved from Scholar
  56. Shaw, D. J., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Hillman, J., Granhag, P. A., et al. (2013). Expect the unexpected? Variations in question type elicit cues to deception in joint interviewer contexts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Knieps, M., & Vrij, A. (2013). True and false intentions: Asking about the past to detect lies about the future. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(8), 673–685. Scholar
  58. Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2015). Statements about true and false intentions: Using the cognitive interview to magnify the differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 371–378. Scholar
  59. Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2009). What really happens in police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(6), 493–506. Scholar
  60. Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., & Dianiska, R. E. (2016). Developing diagnostic, evidence-based approaches to interrogation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 295–301. Scholar
  61. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  62. Vrij, A. (2016). Baselining as a lie detection method: Baselining. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 1112–1119. Scholar
  63. Vrij, A., Blank, H., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). A re-analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 20–23. Scholar
  64. Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302–307. Scholar
  65. 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. Scholar
  66. 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. Scholar
  67. Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Lying about flying: The first experiment to detect false intent. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(7), 611–620. Scholar
  68. Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. Scholar
  69. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., et al. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2011). A comparison between lying about intentions and past activities: Verbal cues and detection accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253–265. Scholar
  72. Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2013a). Spatial and temporal details in intentions: A cue to detecting deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 101–106. Scholar
  73. Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2013b). Spatial and temporal details in intentions: A cue to detecting deception: Spatial and temporal details in lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 101–106. Scholar
  74. Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Jundi, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., Forrester, D., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). Thermal imaging as a lie detection tool at airports. Law and Human Behavior, 35(1), 40–48. Scholar
  76. Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Poletiek, F. H. (2013). The effects of unexpected questions on detecting familiar and unfamiliar lies. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(1), 29–35. Scholar
  77. Wilgoren, J., & Wong, E. (2001). After the attacks: United flight 93; On doomed flight, passengers vowed to perish fighting. New York Times. Retrieved from
  78. Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. Scholar
  79. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bennett Kleinberg
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Arnoud Arntz
    • 1
  • Bruno Verschuere
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Security and Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations