Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 1;12(12):1644.
doi: 10.3390/brainsci12121644.

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future

Affiliations

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future

Aldert Vrij et al. Brain Sci. .

Abstract

This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial research. In the late 1980s, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria. This was followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM, and SCAN. In the mid 2000s, 'Interviewing to deception' emerged, with the goal of developing specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), and Reality Interviewing (RI). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We conclude this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists can inform and improve verbal lie detection.

Keywords: cognitive credibility assessment; criteria-based content analysis; fMRI lie detection; reality interviewing; reality monitoring; scientific content analysis; strategic use of evidence; verbal lie detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Larson J.A. Lying and Its Detection: A Study of Deception and Deception Tests. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 1932.
    1. Reid J.E., Arther R.O. Behavior symptoms of lie-detector subjects. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 1953;44:104–108. doi: 10.2307/1139477. - DOI
    1. Knapp M.L., Hart R.P., Dennis H.S. An exploration of decep tion as a communication construct. Hum. Commun. Res. 1974;1:15–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1974.tb00250.x. - DOI
    1. Farwell L.A., Donchin E. The ‘‘brain detector’’: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology. 1986;23:434.
    1. Farwell L.A., Donchin E. Event-related brain potentials in interrogative polygraphy: Analysis using bootstrapping. Psychophysiology. 1988;25:445. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources