LIE Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load

Abstract

Research on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has expanded dramatically in recent years. Most of it concerns the issue of mistaken identification, not the problem of uncovering deceptive accounts of witnesses, which is the focus of this research. In the literature, a technique for lie detection has been proposed that induces cognitive load on liars by averting their rehearsal of deception: Time Restricted Integrity-Confirmation. The current authors tested it by instructing "witnesses" of actual crime videos to lie or tell the truth to related questions. Each of 145 adults was randomly assigned to a truth telling, an unrehearsed lying, or a rehearsed lying condition. The cognitive cues were response time, answer consistency, eye movements, and pupil dilation. Eye data were gathered with an infrared eye tracker. Truth tellers had the quickest response times and the fewest inconsistencies. Moreover, they generally had more eye movements, suggesting low cognitive loads. Discriminant analyses classified rehearsed liars, unrehearsed liars, and truth tellers up to 69% accurately, with few false positives. Further refinement is warranted.

Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews

“…Other researchers defend the real-life application of even more artificial lie-detection methods, such as event-related potentials (Iacono, 2015). Other novel interviewing procedures, like TRI-Con (Walczyk et al, 2005, 2009, 2012) or reaction-time tests (Verschuere and De Houwer, 2011), are also similarly, “artificial.” Besides, presumably innocent suspects would not object to a procedure able to prove their innocence. However, before using new methods in real settings, replication studies are necessary, as well as ecologically valid research examining the limits of the procedures and potential countermeasures (Blandón-Gitlin et al, 2014).…”

“…Walczyk et al (2005, 2009, 2012) introduced a more articulated interview approach called TRI-Con (Time Restricted Integrity-Confirmation) that involves posing questions to induce cognitive load during lying but facilitate responding during truth-telling. TRI -Con research has also yielded encouraging results (Walczyk et al, 2005, 2009, 2012). Based on this research, we also artificially increased the interviewees’ cognitive load to magnify the differences between liars and truth tellers.…”

“…This request, which is a component of another new interview technique to detect deception (Walczyk et al, ’s 2005, 2012; TRI-Con) and is also employed in response latency based approaches to detect guilty knowledge (Verschuere and De Houwer, 2011), was employed in the present study to increase cognitive load to magnify differences between liars and truth tellers. Asking to reply quickly is cognitively demanding: first, searching for information in long term memory requires time, particularly if the memory is poorly encoded.…”

Advancing Lie Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load on Liars: A Review of Relevant Theories and Techniques Guided by Lessons from Polygraph-Based Approaches

“…The analyses showed that rehearsed deception is detectable. Finally, Walczyk et al (2012) tested TRI-Con in a forensically relevant context. “Witnesses” observed actual crime videos, then later told the truth or lied rehearsed or unrehearsed about them during interrogation.…”

Evidências de validade de uma escala para ansiedade em situações de mentira

“…Sujeitos mentindo produzem mais pistas para a classificação se solicitados, por exemplo, a contar os acontecimentos na ordem inversa (Vrij, Mann, Fisher, Leal, Milne, & Bull, 2008). Instruir suspeitos a manter contato visual durante a entrevista também produziu efeitos semelhantes (Doherty-Sneddon, Bruce, Bonner, Longbotham, & Doyle, 2002;Walczyk, Griffith, Yates, Visconte, Simoneaux, & Harris, 2012).…”