Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions

Ford, E. David

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2005.07.001

Cited by 58 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, "No Lie MRI", a company that markets and sells fMRI lie detection tests, proclaims that fMRI lie detection technology provides "the first and only direct measure of truth verification and lie detection in human history!" 2 Although some consider fMRI a promising technology for lie detection (Feigenson, 2006;Haynes, 2008;Simpson, 2008), many others consider the current technology unreliable (Ford, 2006;Mandavilli, 2006;Merikangas, 2008;Sip, Roepstorff, McGregor, & Frith, 2008). For example, studies providing empirical support for the use of fMRI as a lie detector have not involved imaging people during actual criminal investigations, limiting their generalizability.…”

Section: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Fmri) As a Lie Detectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, studies providing empirical support for the use of fMRI as a lie detector have not involved imaging people during actual criminal investigations, limiting their generalizability. Rather, most empirical studies to date have instructed presumed non-criminals to lie about trivial matters in a controlled setting (Kozel et al, 2005;Langleben et al, 2002Langleben et al, , 2005Spence, 2004), and some have questioned whether lying, when asked to do so, is truly lying at all (Ford, 2006;Spence, 2004;Sip et al, 2008). Moreover, it is unclear whether the structure or function of an individual brain can be compared with data from studies that combine data across participants (Morse, 2006;Sinnott-Armstrong, Roskies, Murphy, & Brown, 2008).…”

Section: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Fmri) As a Lie Detectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We were specifically interested in whether fMRI evidence would be more influential than traditional methods (i.e., the polygraph), or another novel physiological approach to lie detection (i.e., thermal imaging). Thermal imaging is a lie detection technology that involves imaging the level of heat in a person's face, with more heat indicating deception (Ford, 2006;Moenssens, 2002). Like fMRI lie detection, thermal imaging technology is novel and involves imaging physiological responses, but it is not directly related to brain activity.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making

McCabe

Castel

Rhodes

2011

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study, we report on an experiment examining whether functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) lie detection evidence would influence potential jurors' assessment of guilt in a criminal trial. Potential jurors (N = 330) read a vignette summarizing a trial, with some versions of the vignette including lie detection evidence indicating that the defendant was lying about having committed the crime. Lie detector evidence was based on evidence from the polygraph, fMRI (functional brain imaging), or thermal facial imaging. Results showed that fMRI lie detection evidence led to more guilty verdicts than lie detection evidence based on polygraph evidence, thermal facial imaging, or a control condition that did not include lie detection evidence. However, when the validity of the fMRI lie detection evidence was called into question on cross-examination, guilty verdicts were reduced to the level of the control condition. These results provide important information about the influence of lie detection evidence in legal settings.

show abstract

Section: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Fmri) As a Lie Detectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Fmri) As a Lie Detectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making

McCabe

Castel

Rhodes

2011

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was a physiological basis for this assumption. Liars were assumed to fear being caught, and fear is associated with decreased salivation and a dry mouth (Ford, 2006). Nowadays, technology is used to measure physiological (and neurological) reactions-particularly the polygraph; voice-stress analyzers; electroencephalograms (EEG); and most recently, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Vrij

Granhag

Porter

2010

Psychol Sci Public Interest

376

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars.The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter-and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit.The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and t...

show abstract

“…Recently, however, a battery of new imaging technologies makes it possible to gauge and monitor brain activity without the need to penetrate the cranium (Evanson 2003). A number of emerging neuro-imaging techniques can facilitate lie detection (Ford 2006). Some allow electrical activity occurring in the brain to be measured externally and remotely.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tesslingon My Brain: The Future of Lie Detection and Brain Privacy in the Criminal Justice System

Kerr

Binnie

Aoki

2008

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The criminal justice system requires reliable means of detecting truth and lies. A battery of emerging neuro-imaging technologies makes it possible to gauge and monitor brain activity without the need to penetrate the cranium. Bypassing external physiological indicators of dishonesty relied upon by previous lie detection techniques, some neuro-imaging experts believe in the possibility of reliable brain-scan lie-detection systems in the criminal justice system. Because future generations of neuro-technology will become smaller and sleeker, will have greater read ranges, and could one day interface with implantable microchips, some of those experts also believe in the possibility of remote, surreptitious brain surveillance. In this article, the authors examine such possibilities and assert that Canadian courts’ current approach to protecting privacy cannot easily accommodate the challenges caused by these emerging technologies. The article commences with an examination of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that various courts across Canada have misunderstood and misapplied the R. v. Tessling decision by way of an inappropriate analogy. After a description of brain-scan lie-detection systems, the authors then examine the courts’ use of the Tessling analogy in the context of brain privacy. In addition to demonstrating the danger in a generalized judicial proposition that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information emanating from a private place into a public space, the authors conclude that a more robust account of brain privacy is required and speculate about possible sources of law from which this might derive.

show abstract

Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions

Cited by 58 publications

References 38 publications

The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making

The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making

Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Tesslingon My Brain: The Future of Lie Detection and Brain Privacy in the Criminal Justice System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About