CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Deception detection and forensic psychologyMisinformation and Its ImpactsMemory Processes and Influences

Strong, but Wrong: Lay People’s and Police Officers’ Beliefs about Verbal and Nonverbal Cues to Deception

Open access
Bogaard, Glynis, Meijer, Ewout H., Vrij, Aldert, Merckelbach, Harald·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0156615PMC PMC4892574
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study investigated the beliefs of students and police officers about cues to deception. A total of 95 police officers and 104 undergraduate students filled out a questionnaire addressing beliefs about cues to deception. Twenty-eight verbal cues were included in the questionnaire, all extracted from verbal credibility assessment tools (i.e., CBCA, RM, and SCAN). We investigated to what extent beliefs about nonverbal and verbal cues of deception differed between lay people (students) and police officers, and whether these beliefs were in agreement with objective cues known from research. Both students and police officers believed the usual stereotypical, but non-diagnostic (nonverbal) cues such as gaze aversion and increased movement to be indicative of deception. Yet, participants were less inclined to overestimate the relationship between verbal cues and deception and their beliefs fitted better with what we know from research. The implications of these findings for practice are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0156615

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Liars often provide less consistent or coherent verbal accounts lacking informational content, with fewer event details.

    “Liars often provide less consistent or coherent verbal accounts lacking informational content, with fewer event details (Bogaard et al., 2016; DePaulo et al., 2003; Hartwig et al., 2011).”

    From Sorting Insiders From Co-Workers: Remote Synchronous Computer-Mediated Triage for Investigating Insider Attacks (2024) · cites this paper as Bogaard et al., 2016

  • Our results confirm that questioning strategies which maximize cognitive burden can amplify signals of deception.

    “Our results confirm findings of previous research in face-to-face and remote person-to-person contexts that questioning strategies which maximize cognitive burden can amplify signals of deception (e.g., Bogaard et al., 2016; DePaulo et al., 2003; Pentland et al., 2017), highlighting the potential of remote automated CMC.”

    From Sorting Insiders From Co-Workers: Remote Synchronous Computer-Mediated Triage for Investigating Insider Attacks (2024) · cites this paper as Bogaard et al., 2016

    The Methods describe a questionnaire about beliefs concerning deception cues, and the Discussion says the study did not examine actual deception-detection performance. Searches for cognitive burden, cognitive load, and questioning strategies found no passage showing that such strategies amplify deception signals. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [12]Sporer SL, Schwandt B. Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2007; 13: 1– 34.
  2. [13]Vrij A. Beliefs about nonverbal and verbal cues to deception In: Vrij A, editor. Detecting lies and deceit. Chirchester: Wiley; 2008 p. 115– 40.
  3. [14]Akehurst L, Köhnken G, Vrij A, Bull R. Lay persons' and police officers' beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1996; 10: 461– 71.
  4. [33]Sporer SL. The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1997; 11: 373– 97.
  5. [37]Raskin DC, Esplin PW. Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment. 1991; 13: 265– 91.
  6. [44]Vrij A. Reality Monitoring In: Davies G, Bull R, editors. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley; 2008 p. 261– 80.
  7. [46]Bockstaele M. De SCAN als middel tot waarheidsvinding [SCAN as a tool for searching the truth]. Het Tijdschrift voor de Politie [Journal of Police]. 2008; 70: 8– 13.
  8. [60]Hart CL, Hudson L. P., Fillmore D. G., & Griffith J. D. Managerial Beliefs about the Behavioral Cues of Deception. Individual Differences Research. 2006; 4: 176– 84.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
Corresponding author
Bogaard, Glynis
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-06-03
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
e0156615
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0156615
PMC
PMC4892574
OpenAlex
W2412576869
Cited by
123
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8
FWCI
16.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
deception detection, verbal cues, nonverbal cues, lay beliefs, police officers, students, gaze aversion, credibility assessment, deception detection training
MeSH terms
Adult, Cues, Culture, Female, Humans, Deception, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Verbal Behavior, Police, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review