The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strong, but Wrong: Lay People’s and Police Officers’ Beliefs about Verbal and Nonverbal Cues to Deception
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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
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.
Citations
Cites
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 · Cited by 2,479
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · Cited by 1,953
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.67 · Cited by 1,658
Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167203029005010 · Cited by 1,489
Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities
Vrij, A. (2008) · Cited by 1,309
Self-citationDePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979 · Cited by 1,213
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 1,052
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2009) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6 · Cited by 728
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- DC Raskin, 1991, Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse, Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265
- M Bockstaele, 2008, De SCAN als middel tot waarheidsvinding [SCAN as a tool for searching the truth], Het Tijdschrift voor de Politie [Journal of Police], 70, 8
- CL Hart, 2006, Managerial Beliefs about the Behavioral Cues of Deception, Individual Differences Research, 4, 176
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–122 of 122
Yaremchuk, R. (2021) · Ûridična psihologìâ · doi:10.33270/03212801.82
A ATUAÇÃO DO PROFISSIONAL DE ODONTOLOGIA DIANTE DA PANDEMIA COVID-19
da Silveira, J. S. (2021) · Editora Inovar eBooks · doi:10.36926/editorainovar-978-65-80476-82-4_001
The cognitive neural network model of deception
Zhang, Y., & Mai, X. (2022) · Chinese Science Bulletin (Chinese Version) · doi:10.1360/tb-2021-0963
SÍNDROME DE DOWN: O PAPEL DA FAMÍLIA, DOS PROFESSORES E DA ESCOLA PARA UM PROCESSO DE INCLUSÃO
Silva, A. P. B., Freitas, E. R. D. M., da Silva, D. C., Rocha, A. D. S. B. A., Sousa, M. F., & Brito, A. L. (2022) · Editora Inovar eBooks · doi:10.36926/editorainovar-978-65-5388-010-8_021
Understanding the neural basis of deception versus truth-telling
Leow, D. W. Y. (2021) · doi:10.32657/10356/161752
Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St‐Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., Sporer, S. L., Rioux-Turcotte, J., Jarry, J., Walsh, D., et al. (2023) · doi:10.32920/22096157.v1
George, J. F., Mills, A., Giordano, G. A., Gupta, M., Tennant, V., & Lewis, C. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.2023.3263378 · Cited by 2
Lob, A. B., Chakir, N., & Verschuère, B. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/6rpc7
Byrnes, K., & Idrizi, K. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-27366-7.00020-1 · Cited by 1
Noise in the Verifiability Approach to Lie Detection
Galvéz-García, G., Mena‐Chamorro, P., Moline, A. D., Espinoza‐Palavicino, T., Iborra, O., & Milán, E. G. (2025) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.70089
Bogaard, G., Nieuwkamp, V., & Colwell, K. (2025) · Police Practice and Research · doi:10.1080/15614263.2025.2570276
Self-citationKatta, W., Turley, E. L., Rebar, A. L., & Wilcoxson, R. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.70021
Verschuère, B., Kleinberg, B., van Kolfschooten, M., Bolhoven, L., & Rassin, E. (2025) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2025.2592947
I Told You So! Verbal cue beliefs are associated with truth detection, but not lie detection
Bogaard, G., Fieweger, S. E., & Meijer, E. H. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339531
Self-citationMourato, A. M. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/8dfc726az7e04z4056z8b1ez5e532bdcf096 · Cited by 1
Deception behind bars: A mixed‐methods investigation of inmates' beliefs about lie detection
Turi, A., & Visu‐Petra, L. (2026) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.70039
Villeneuve, K. C., Leach, A., Elliott, E., & Lahay, R. (2026) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2026.2716205
Expressive liars, credible impressions: Facial expressions across three deception paradigmsPreprint
Gullotta, M., Paterson, H., & MacCann, C. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10945861/v1
Kemme, S., & Posch, L. (2026) · Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1007/s11896-026-09873-8
Metadata
- Authors
- Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- University of Portsmouth (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bogaard, Glynis
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-06-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e0156615
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
