Criminal Justice and Behavior

http://cjb.sagepub.com/ LIE Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load : Eye Movements and Other Cues to the False Answers of ''Witnesses'' to Crimes
Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Diana A. Griffith, Rachel Yates, Shelley R. Visconte, Byron Simoneaux and Laura L. Harris Criminal Justice and Behavior 2012 39: 887 originally published online 28 March 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0093854812437014 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/39/7/887

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

Additional services and information for Criminal Justice and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jun 8, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 28, 2012 What is This?
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on November 5, 2012

437014

CJBXXX10.1177/0093854812437014WAL CZYK et al. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSESCRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 2012

LIE DETECTION BY INDUCING COGNITIVE LOAD Eye Movements and Other Cues to the False Answers of “Witnesses” to Crimes
JEFFREY J. WALCZYK DIANA A. GRIFFITH RACHEL YATES SHELLEY R. VISCONTE BYRON SIMONEAUX LAURA L. HARRIS
Louisiana Tech University

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. Keywords:  lie detection; rehearsal; cognition and deception; eyewitness testimony

yewitness testimony is often the evidence most persuasive to juries despite its unreliability (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Loftus, 2007). In some cases, such testimony was crucial for conviction, even when there was compelling exculpatory evidence (Loftus, 1979). Advances in DNA testing applied to postconviction cases have led to the release of more than 240 inmates wrongfully convicted partly by mistaken eyewitness testimony (Garrett, 2010). Most validity concerns over eyewitness testimony involve mistaken identification (Loftus, 2007; Wells & Olson, 2003), not the deceptive testimony of witnesses. More research is needed on detecting it. The present study is relevant to eventually reducing false confessions, false alibis, and perjured testimony of witnesses through cognitive lie detection.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This material is based on work funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant 648375. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors, not NSF. The authors thank Alexandra Bellone, Melissa Bordelon, Victoria Gault, and Coleen Maidlow for their assistance with data collection and coding. Correspondence may be addressed to Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences, P.O. Box 10048, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272; e-mail: Walczyk@latech.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 39, No. 7, July 2012, 887-909. DOI: 10.1177/0093854812437014 © 2012 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

E

887
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on November 5, 2012

Jurors were asked to judge the truthfulness of witnesses. Investigators observed that accounts of those in the false alibi condition had fewer details. though Garrido et al. The accuracy of the officers was at chance level. 2003). AND THEIR DETECTION A pernicious source of invalid testimony is witnesses giving deceptive accounts to investigators or perjuring themselves on the stand. replicated by others (Hartwig. in a review of studies of the accuracy of police officers. National Research Council [NRC]. false alibis) can slip past investigators and jurors because of their weak abilities as lie detectors. Masip.. the most common method of lie detection. such as when a perpetrator discloses a false alibi (see also Bond & DePaulo. and Herrero (2004) contrasted 121 officers with 146 college students in the accuracy of judging deceptive and truthful videotaped statements. how much detail they contained. These findings. and Hartwig (2005) examined various cues to deception available to 122 mock jurors who evaluated the testimony of 12 witnesses. and Hurley (2009) found that police could detect deception significantly beyond chance when the lies being witnessed involve high stakes for the liar. justify their judgments. and calls for alternatives technologies (DePaulo et al. deceptive and perjured testimony (e. Stromwall. Additionally. and how confidently witnesses relayed them. Researchers have also compared the police with lay people in their ability to detect deception. Regarding the latter. In conclusion. Moreover. how hard the witness had to think (e. and rate witnesses on various behavioral dimensions. 2003). 1998. However. how at ease they were.g. 1998). and were less likely to admit they had forgotten a detail of an event.g. 2003. and their pleasantness. Granhag. Vrij.888   Criminal Justice and Behavior LIES DURING QUESTIONING.com by guest on November 5. there has been much recent criticism of the validity of the polygraph. less coherence.sagepub. Researchers have identified a number of signs of deceptive testimony. which is also a basic cue of the cognitive lie detector tested in this research. In fact. 1998).. 2006). the time needed to respond) was the only cue they used that correlated with deception. Garrido. If witnesses know the accused. 2010). 2012 . Frank. including how hard witnesses had to think. Police officers reported higher confidence in their lie detection abilities. Downloaded from cjb. 1993). Jurors performed poorly at detecting deception.. This research advances the development of a cognitive-based alternative to the polygraph with potential to uncover deceptive testimony. 2004. Lykken. Landström. Jurors often do no better as lie detectors. PERJURED TESTIMONY. Analyses showed that observers’ perceptions of truthfulness were influenced by the plausibility of statements. argued that officers’ overconfidence potentially hinders their learning of actual cues to deceit.. their eloquence in speech. Cues to deception multiply as motivated liars monitor and try to control their behavior to appear truthful (DePaulo et al. & Vrij. whereas that of laypeople was slightly higher. O’Sullivan. they sometimes feel compelled to provide a false alibi or identification to shield him or her or to protect themselves from reprisal from a disgruntled suspect (Lykken. Porter and Yuille (1996) instructed participants to lie about their involvement in a mock crime and had some create false alibis. Overconfidence when recounting details of events can thus signal deception. half of whom lied when testifying about a staged accident that took place 3 weeks prior. run contrary to the stereotype of the public that police officers are superlative lie detectors (Lykken. Granhag. the appearance of witnesses affected judgments. lies during questioning and deceptive testimony in courtrooms are serious threats to procedural justice (Garrett.

. 2005). 2007. In essence. Mann. Glenberg. and Doyle (2002) replicated these results with children.Walczyk et al. Vrij et al. named another the increase cognitive load approach. Schroeder.. (f) When feasible. Empirical support for this hypothesis is weak (DePaulo et al. Walczyk et al. and Leal (2008) labeled two load-related approaches. This is a well-known experimental paradigm for determining the architecture of the mind (Pashler.g.. prompting reduces examinees’ need for explicit memory searching to answer truthfully and so should make cognitive cues to deception less confounded. which concerns methods for inducing cognitive load on liars. we propose that a corollary of Glenberg et al. & Rosenthal. DePaulo.. 2003). examinees should be instructed to maintain eye contact with the examiner (Vrij. Zuckerman.g. especially without rehearsal (Vrij et al.com by guest on November 5. 2003. By preactivating relevant nodes of episodic memory. As an example of a concurrent task in lie detection.sagepub. 2010). (d) Examinees are instructed to answer quickly to limit their opportunity to prepare lies. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    889 LIE DETECTION BY INDUCING COGNITIVE LOAD: AVERTING REHEARSAL Walczyk et al. 2012 . These authors discussed what we now call dual tasking (performing two tasks concurrently).. (2005) introduced a novel approach to lie detection intended to maximize cognitive load on liars and minimize it on truth tellers by averting the rehearsal of deceptive answers: Time Restricted Integrity-Confirmation (TRI-Con). We now add another guideline to enhance cognitive load on liars. it surprises examinees with questions by following these guidelines during lie detection examinations: (a) Examinees are prompted about the focus of the questions to follow (e. 2009). (b) The specific questions are not made known to examinees until the examination itself to discourage the rehearsal of lies. “Did you see the shooting?”). Bonner. (e) Interrelated questions are asked to increase liars’ cognitive load and provoke contradictions. & Fisher. This study is the first to test this possibility. Fisher. Requiring sustained eye contact should make gaze aversion and eye movements more obvious. and Robertson (1998) asked participants moderately difficult general informational questions requiring memory searching and showed that averting gaze away from environmental distraction facilitated the allocation of cognitive resources to internal processing that enhanced performance. Doherty-Sneddon and Phelps (2005) and Doherty-Sneddon.’s position is that less eye movement should be evident during deception. Longbotham. “What happened during the crime?”).. (c) Questions should be answerable in one or two words (e. 1981).. Bruce. Clearly. suggested that examinees could answer an investigator’s questions while also engaging in a computerized Downloaded from cjb. Vrij. LIE DETECTION BY INDUCING COGNITIVE LOAD: DUAL TASKING Following TRI-Con’s introduction. If lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling. found to be higher in liars (DePaulo et al. researchers have proposed other ways that lie detection procedures might induce cognitive load selectively on liars. “The next 15 questions concern your relationship with the suspect prior to the crime”). Leal. 1994). thereby making determination of the time needed to fully answer a question clearer compared to questions evoking narratives (e. Vrij et al. The mere cognitive load approach is based on the hypothesis that lying is inherently more cognitively demanding of limited attention and working memory than truth telling (Sporer & Schwandt. eye movements can increase visual stimulation that might be distracting to someone who is focusing attention inwardly to generate a lie. Mann.g.

DePaulo et al. Cody. Likewise. and Griffith-Ross (2009) found that rehearsal decreased lying response times and inconsistencies compared to unrehearsed lying. Although such results are interesting. However. Still. (2003) concluded that there are no unequivocal signs of deception and recommended lie detection via converging cues. Though the dual tasking approach is promising. O’Hair. we are not sure that requiring it rises to the level of dual tasking. Sporer and Schwandt (2006. Walczyk. theoretical consideration should be given to what concurrent tasks will interfere more with lying than truth telling and why (see Pashler. (2010) found that liars instructed to maintain eye contact during an interview about money taken from a wallet showed more cues (fewer auditory and temporal details in a narrative. To summarize. and McLaughlin (1981) observed that planned lies were briefer. 1994). Vrij et al.890   Criminal Justice and Behavior driving simulation. we added it to TRI-Con because it may increase cognitive load more on liars. In two recent meta-analyses of verbal and nonverbal cues. the two approaches are practically compatible and can be integrated by investigators. If deception is more cognitively demanding than truthfulness. on the effects of rehearsal on these and other cognitive cues. More research is needed. took less time. however. Because making eye contact is a natural part of conversing. REHEARSAL: AN ATTENUATOR OF COGNITIVE LOAD Studies have examined the effects of planning a lie on its detection. 2009) helped validate TRI-Con but only with response time and answer inconsistency. Mahoney. Bond and DePaulo (2006) noted that lies were easier to detect if baseline behaviors of individuals were available to observers and the lies were unrehearsed. Specifically. Research on the cognition of deception has largely ignored the effects of rehearsal on cognitive cues. and Pineault (1986) investigated why and found that planning allowed liars to control effectively nonverbal cues to deception. limitations that are overcome in this research. In their meta-analysis of the accuracy of judgments of deception. In a milder form of what investigators argue is dual tasking. Doverspike. (2005. and involved fewer illustrators.sagepub. 2012 . 2007) sought to include rehearsal as a moderator but were unable to locate sufficient studies that manipulated it. Walczyk et al. They also answered 18 general questions Downloaded from cjb.com by guest on November 5. they do not advance understanding of the effects of rehearsal on indices of cognitive load. Littlepage. Littlepage and Pineault (1985) found that observers were less accurate at detecting planned deceptions than spontaneous ones. CURRENT STUDY In their influential meta-analysis of cues to deception. to ensure its validity. Tang. averting-rehearsal approaches induce cognitive load selectively on liars by blindsiding examinees with questions and by having them answer quickly. Dual tasking induces load by imposing split attention interference such that liars are more adversely affected. not using multiple cognitive cues or in a forensically relevant context of “eye witnessed” crimes. we showed 145 participants two videos of actual crimes and then instructed them to play the role of witnesses and answer crime-related questions either (a) truthfully or with (b) rehearsed or (c) unrehearsed lies. the simulation should interfere more with liars than truth tellers and enhance cognitive cues. any cognitive-load-inducing lie detector must consider rehearsal to be a likely countermeasure. Though theoretically distinct. slower speech) than liars not so instructed.

participants adopted the roles of “witnesses” to two different crime videos to see if the pattern of cues observed with one could be replicated with the second. Recall also that the instruction to maintain eye contact increased the cognitive load of lying and cues to deception. involves withinsubject comparison by establishing physiological base rates (Lykken. 2001). which confound strictly between-subjects comparisons.Walczyk et al. and then truth tellers. Finally. and pupil dilation. this controls for individual differences in baseline rates.. 2000). We expected rehearsal to reduce inconsistency below that of unrehearsed lying (Walczyk et al. likely Downloaded from cjb. Because yes–no and open-ended questions differ in the syntactic constraints that each puts on permissible responses. Walczyk et al. Two types of questions were asked: those requiring yes or no responses and open-ended questions evoking short responses besides yes or no. & Mosmann. This is the first study to assess eye movements as a cognitive cue as individuals answer questions. Walczyk et al. H3: Truth tellers will move their eyes the most. (2005) proposed controlling for such individual differences by subtracting truthful base rates from base rates of questions suspected of deception. Seymour.com by guest on November 5. (2010) videotaped participants and later coded tapes for the eye contact made during interviews. Four hypotheses and their theoretical and empirical rationales follow.sagepub. Studies demonstrate more pupil dilation in liars than truth tellers.. rehearsal can decrease the time required to lie (O’Hair et al. The ample rehearsal of this study should lower response times below that of truth tellers. Answer consistency is the output of processing (DePaulo et al. a suggestion we follow. 2003. whereas we precisely measured eye movements with an infrared eye tracker while participants answered. 2009). Similarly. H1: Unrehearsed liars will have longer response times than truth tellers. eye movements. 1998). 2003). likely due to not having generated sufficiently coherent and detailed narratives before lying (Porter & Yuille. Walters (1996) argued that the accuracy of deception detection increases if truth telling baseline rates are established for each behavioral cue against which suspected deceptive responding can be compared. Walczyk et al. followed by rehearsed liars. too. Moreover. Response time and pupil dilation are direct measures of the extent of processing (Solso. 2009). Vrij et al. Reducing eye movements is hypothesized to reflect attempts to lower cognitive load. Vrij et al. 2012 .. Seifert. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    891 truthfully to provide ground-truth behavioral baselines. The polygraph.. 1996.. Studies show that unrehearsed lying takes longer than truth telling (DePaulo et al. followed by rehearsed liars. the inconsistency of answers to interrelated questions. 1981. The four cues evaluated were response time.. H2: Total inconsistencies across interrelated questions will be greatest for unrehearsed liars. These cues were selected systematically. Shafto. Moreover. followed by truth tellers. each accessing a distinct aspect of cognitive load. unrehearsed liars will move their eyes the least. (2005) urged analyzing the cues of each separately. which we do. who will have longer response times than rehearsed liars. H4: Unrehearsed liars will have more pupil dilation than rehearsed liars. Unrehearsed liars should move their eyes little as they focus on internal processes. 2009). Liars are often more inconsistent than truth tellers. In effect.

and pupil dilation. were also given a copy of questions and 5 min for preparing lies.4%). completely randomized. Although studies have not considered the effects of rehearsal on the pupil dilation of deceptive answers. and 4 Latino (2. who were otherwise uninvolved.” (b) Unrehearsed liars were asked to assume that the perpetrators were friends of theirs whom they did not want to see have criminal records for a lapse of judgment. lie condition. The dependent variables were these cognitive cues: response time. The independent variable (IV). (c) Rehearsed liars had the exact same instructions as unrehearsed liars but. 2012 . The racial composition was 105 White (72. Granholm. They were instructed to answer all video-related questions deceptively and to be sure that all answers were logically consistent and plausible. Hillix. Dionisio.4%). Honts. involved the video-related questions and had three levels: truth telling.sagepub. between-subjects design was used. The greeter first obtained informed consent. each session lasting about 30 min. However.92). it was expected to be lower than that of unrehearsed liars. they had no prior exposure to the questions. Webb. Kircher. Consistent with TRI-Con. & Cook. consistent with TRI-Con. loud voice. All were American citizens and native English speakers. participants were interviewed with these questions. 2009). Heilveil. The gender breakdown was 82 females (56. 1976.com by guest on November 5.5%). 31 Black (21. 2001. METHOD PARTICIPANTS Recruited from psychology classes at a southern university.4%). The instructions then diverged depending on the lie condition to which a participant was randomly assigned. answer consistency. The mean age was 22.6%) and 63 males (43. Participants were informed that they would “witness” two surveillance videos of actual crimes and were instructed to watch and listen carefully because they would only be shown each video once and would be questioned after each.23 years (SD = 5. GENERAL PROCEDURE Participants were tested individually. and rehearsed lying. Pilot testing on 11 college students before the experiment. 5 Asian (3. confirmed that 5 min was Downloaded from cjb. 1996. eye movements. Lubow & Fein. in effect. covering for them. RESEARCH DESIGN A multilevel. All participants were directed to answer truthfully the 18 general questions asked first. (a) Truth tellers were instructed to adopt the role of a witness who wants the perpetrators brought to justice and to answer all questions about the videos “truthfully to the best of your recollection. then handed a hardcopy of general instructions to participants and read them aloud as they followed along. 1979. unrehearsed lying. after viewing each video. they were told to answer “all questions as quickly as possible while constantly maintaining eye contact with me” as well as to answer in a clear. Two experimenters were required: a greeter and an examiner.8%). 145 adults received extra credit. Bernhardt.892   Criminal Justice and Behavior due to a greater cognitive load accompanying deception (Bradley & Janisse. & Perrine. Afterward.

question set). Such rehearsal is ecologically valid in that allowing examinees to “preview” questions is a common practice with the polygraph (Lykken. which were shown on a Dell desktop computer in full-screen mode (13. all participants were ushered by the greeter into the eye tracking lab. who then nonchalantly leaves. Rehearsed liars were given the opportunity to prepare lies afterward. which rarely was necessary. After that. Video 1. an elderly White female who does not detect the pilferage. given that the eye tracking interview task was largely automated. who is distracted while on the Internet rather than “minding the store. All 37 appear in the appendix. Two individuals are visible throughout: a salesclerk behind the counter. The 18 general questions were asked first as eye data were collected. the perpetrator pilfers a box of some nondescript product from the lower shelf of a counter and conceals it under a coat draped on his left shoulder. there were minimal opportunities for either to bias the results. participants were “interviewed” about the video just seen as the cognitive cues were assessed. The 18 general questions probed personal information and general knowledge to provide ground truth behavioral baseline data (Walters. White male working as a janitor. Categories of questions (i. Next. When the salesclerk is distracted. most were answerable with a word or two.” and a customer (perpetrator). 2012 . 1998). The video features a 3-s close-up of the perpetrator’s face. enters the office and exchanges pleasantries with the perpetrator. Both are young. the office’s occupant. followed by a debriefing. The 19 Downloaded from cjb. Only the head of the salesclerk is visible but shows clearly his race and dark hair. he calmly leaves the store. White males. making direct eye contact throughout and reminding participants to do so as needed. During all three question sets of the eye tracking interview. Video 2. The perpetrator is clearly visible. he sees cash in an open purse on the floor and steals it.5 × 11 in.. Shortly after.sagepub. this crime is set in a convenience store. Per TRI-Con guidelines. Lasting 75 s. The appendix specifies which question pairs were written to be logically interrelated. After receiving their instructions. The boldfaced questions tested facts that could be verified to ensure compliance with instructions to answer truthfully. e. While alone. 1996). participants were moved to a computer in the same room and were shown the first of two crime videos. He enters an office to empty the garbage. Finally. Video order was counterbalanced over participants. the greeter sat directly in front of participants. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    893 adequate time for all to prepare deceptive answers for each video question set. The two talk throughout mostly about their cars. This video is 106 s in length and features a young.). Then this procedure was repeated for the second video. MATERIALS Crime videos. and Video 2—each a mixture of yes–no and open-ended questions. Even though neither the greeter nor the examiner was blind to the experimental conditions of participants. Next.Walczyk et al. The local police department provided digital copies of two surveillance training videos (with audio) of actual thefts.com by guest on November 5. the postexperiment questionnaire was administered. Three categories of questions were written— general. Video 1.

sourceforge.com) assessed pupil dilation and eye movements.com by guest on November 5. Before testing. Smaller mean standard deviations in Tables 3. 2012 . including characteristics of the perpetrators and the nature of the theft.net). was used to record the instructions that preceded each set of questions (prompting the focus of the questions to follow) and each question as its own digital file.894   Criminal Justice and Behavior interview questions (10 Video 1. The origin was in the upper. 21 Cabot Road. that is.sagepub. & Jayne. MA 01801. the pupil dilation and point of regard (i. THE EYE TRACKING SYSTEM AND INTERVIEW TASK The Eye Tracking Laboratory (ETL) 400 Infrared eye tracking system (manufactured by ISCAN Inc. and 6 indicate more stationary eyes. A young woman read the instructions and questions in a clear. wide and 23 in. the eye data analyzed started with the beginning of a question and ended when the voice key tripped. authoritative voice. the ETL 400 is designed to analyze eye movements into vertical and horizontal components. The bottom right had maximum coordinates (horizontal = 511. Answers were also digitally recorded. A JAVA program presented the instructions for a set of questions. 9 Video 2) addressed what happened in the videos. The instructions directed participants to answer them all truthfully. vertical = 511). for the full question–answer event.3. Participants’ chins were positioned on a chinrest. website: http://iscaninc. AUDACITY DIGITAL RECORDING SOFTWARE Audacity version 1. vertical = 0).. The greeter sat 4 feet in front of them. When an irrelevant noise caused the voice key to trip prematurely. usually the answer. the ETL 400 was calibrated using four numbered corners on a rectangle 29 in. tall on the wall behind the greeter. They are of the kind often asked by detectives (Inbau. Buckley. A computer ran the JAVA program that controlled the procedure. The time needed to answer was measured to the millisecond by a voice key. ISCAN recommended using the standard deviation of the vertical points of regard and the standard deviation of the horizontal points of regard for each question–answer event to assess eye movement. which we did. Also. 2001). response times were determined using the recordings. an open source digital recording and editing software. Reid. A postexperimenter questionnaire was prepared that listed the 10 Video 1 questions and 9 Video 2 questions to assess whether the truth had been encoded by participants. The eye tracker imposed a virtual coordinate system of pixels corresponding to where participants were looking. caused the voice key to trip and an audible beep. Pupil dilation and eye movements of Tables 3 through 6 are expressed in pixels. Throughout the ETL 400 took 60 “snapshots” of the right eye per second. For each test question. In each. Woburn. followed by the appropriate questions in their order of appearance in the appendix. Postexperiment questionnaire. 4. left-hand corner (horizontal = 0.8 (http://audacity. Downloaded from cjb.e. which is why vertical and horizontal eye data were analyzed separately. The greeter sat such that her eyes were about in the middle of the rectangle. The mean pupil dilation for this interval was used. Readers interested in obtaining more details about this or any other aspect of the procedure can contact the lead author. Any noise following a question.. virtual coordinates where the fovea was centered at any instant) were measured.

Her inconsistency totals are used in the analyses. 1997). it was clear that participants assigned to truth telling generally answered Video 1 and 2 questions truthfully or with an “I don’t know. a common inconsistency was answering Question 29 with “a violent crime” and later answering Question 33 with “he hid the stolen item with his jacket. mean accuracy was 7.” Liars. For Video 2.sagepub.67. CHECKING TRANSCRIPTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE The transcribed answers were checked for participant compliance with instructions to answer general questions truthfully. Finally.44. Since response times often were positively skewed. and few inconsistencies occurred.81 (SD =.Walczyk et al. there was a mean for response time and pupil dilation. . Also. and .” To assess interrater reliability. as well as for open-ended questions. the median response time within each question category and question type was used to control for outliers (Solso. randomly selected from the 145. Within each question category. Pearson correlations between inconsistency totals of the two raters for the general. respectively. SUMMARIZING DATA FOR EACH CATEGORY OF QUESTION For each question–answer event. Video 1. Regarding the postexperimenter questionnaire data. Rarely were answers inaudible. 2012 . 2001). within each question category.” For Video 2. The eye and response time data of questions answered truthfully or inaudibly were treated as missing. the mean number of questions correctly answered for Video 1 for all 145 was 9. and Video 2 questions were . overall answered <10% of the Video 1 and 2 questions truthfully. as well as a vertical eye movement standard deviation and a horizontal eye movement standard deviation.92. in Video 1. results showing that participants generally had encoded truths. These data were summarized for hypothesis testing as follows. were independently coded for inconsistencies by the GA and by another GA otherwise unaffiliated with this project. and H4 were tested with a 2 × 3 mixed ANOVA for Video 1 and Video 2. The between-subjects factor Downloaded from cjb. copies of 47 transcriptions. Transcriptions were later coded for the number of inconsistencies within a question set. open-ended). . The within-subjects factor was question type (yes–no.65. all significant and large enough to justify having the first GA code the remaining transcripts (Anastasi & Urbina.78. inconsistencies occurred when Question 22 (see the appendix) was answered “yes” but the answer to Questions 23 began with “He . / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    895 TRANSCRIBING AUDIO RECORDINGS AND CODING FOR INCONSISTENCIES A graduate assistant (GA) transcribed audio recordings for all utterances following each question. An inconsistency occurred when the second answer of an interrelated pair was implausible if the answer to the first question was assumed true. 83% correct).48 (SD =. H3. which was possible with the boldfaced factual general questions of the appendix.com by guest on November 5. Compliance was good. For example. No one answered more than two of them incorrectly. . DATA ANALYSIS H1. the mean horizontal and vertical eye movement standard deviations were determined by question type. rehearsed and unrehearsed. 98% correct). comparing the postexperiment surveys with the transcriptions. the mean pupil dilation for yes–no questions was determined.

truth tellers and rehearsed liars were significantly faster than unrehearsed liars. Lie condition made a difference. predicting more inconsistencies with deception.001. F(2. ή = . as was H2. p = . ή = . For a significant main effect or simple main effect for lie condition. In the case of open-ended questions. The Question Type × Lie Condition interaction was also significant.49. ή = . H4. H1: RESPONSE TIME Descriptive statistics for response times are provided in Table 1. ή = . In all tables. (yes–no M = 574. 2009). followed by truth tellers. ή = .001. Unrehearsed liars answered the slowest. all three conditions were significantly different. p = . F(2.359 (yes–no M = 20.com by guest on November 5. 142) = 23.648. Only if significant lie condition effects occurred are these results reported. F(2.001. main effects for question type and Question Type × Lie Condition interactions are only reported when significant. p = . a main effect was found for question type. 142) = 32. Specifically. p = . p = . A constant pattern of results occurred across videos that supports H1. For yes–no questions. For Video 2. H1.001.24. 142) = 260. There were no missing data with this cue. Because of a significant interaction. with open-ended questions taking longer. Lie condition was significant. was well supported. In the case of yes–no questions. regarding longer response times with lying. Moreover.89. see Table 1.42.896   Criminal Justice and Behavior was lie condition (truth telling. F(1. F(2. rehearsed liars answered the fastest.001.001.115. 142) = 22.sagepub. These adjustments also occurred for Video 2 response times. and for lie condition. one for each cognitive cue evaluated. p = . rehearsed lying). 2005. F(1.34. ή = . For open-ended questions. For open-ended questions.246. with rehearsed liars the fastest and unrehearsed liars the slowest. unrehearsed liars took significantly longer than the other two conditions. Walczyk et al. open-ended questions took longer than yes–no questions.406 (yes–no M = 629. 142) = 9. F(1. unrehearsed lying. H2 was tested with a one-way ANOVA. was not supported. ή = .11. simple main effects were examined.168. the F statistics of simple main effects used to understand interactions are not reported. To avoid overwhelming readers with statistics. openended M = 1. For adjusted Video 1 means.339. In the case of Video 1.313. rehearsed liars and truth tellers were significantly faster than unrehearsed liars. 142) = 36. open-ended M = 878). adjusted Video 1 response times were computed by subtracting the yes–no and open-ended means of general questions from the corresponding means of the Video 1 questions. all three condition means differed significantly. with Downloaded from cjb. H3 asserts greater eye movement with truth telling and was partially confirmed. open-ended M = 306). Consistent with Walters (1996) and Walczyk and colleagues (Walczyk et al. 142) = 97. 2012 . predicting greater pupil dilation with deception.243.001. p = . p = . RESULTS Four hypotheses were tested. truthful base rate means were used to adjust means of cues of questions suspected of deception. For adjusted means. The interaction was significant. p = . 142) = 14.60.007).74. the Studentized-Newman-Keuls (S-N-K) procedure determined which means were significantly different.18.. ANOVAs on the cues for general questions were conducted to ensure equality of the conditions that random assignment produces.001. For yes–no questions. 142) = 79. ή = . F(2. F(2. especially with open-ended questions. condition Ns are boldfaced. question type made a difference. ή = .001.

1-3. F(2.02. ή =. inconsistencies occurred enough to discriminate among conditions for the videos. Downloaded from cjb. Video 2 N Mean no. Rehearsed liars were faster than truth tellers and unrehearsed liars with open-ended questions.001. 142) = 19. ή = .67. Moreover.36.304 1.1-3. Once again. p = .2-3 1-2. Video 2 N Mean no. A significant main effect for lie condition occurred for Video 1. truth tellers had fewer inconsistencies than the other conditions. open-ended M = 176). These results parallel those of the unadjusted scores.2-3 1-2. F(2. 138) = 10.001. adjusting for individual differences by subtracting yes–no or open-ended means produced a pattern of differences similar to those of the unadjusted means while controlling for individual differences in base rates. another for lie condition. 140) = 8. Adjusted Video 2 means showed a main effect for question type.Walczyk et al.2-3 1-2. and Question Category Lie Condition   Truth Telling Unrehearsed Lying Rehearsed Lying     Means Significantly Different   545 498 583 –47 37 48 1 676 1. Ns are occasionally reduced due to at least one answer of an interrelated pair being inaudible such that total inconsistency within a set could not be determined. Video 1 Adj. Finally.176. H2: INCONSISTENCIES Table 2 reports statistics for total inconsistencies by question set.2-3       None 1-2. 142) = 15.sagepub. M SD M SD M SD 211 340 314 304 285 270 372 515 430 600 218 332 270 276 231 unrehearsed liars taking the most time. F(2. unrehearsed liars took longer than truth tellers and rehearsed liars.148 556 399 47 2 157 366 279 323 242 544 475 558 –69 14 50 3 683 708 567 25 –115 50 3 174 237 262 229 232 None 1-2. 2012 . F(1.11.2-3 1-2. H2 was partially supported. 214. Although infrequent.2-3 1-3. Open-ended questions General Video 1 Video 2 Adj.001. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    897 TABLE 1:  Statistics for Response Times (in milliseconds) by Lie Condition. rehearsed liars the least. H1 was supported. unrehearsed lying took the longest for Videos 1 and 2. A significant lie condition main effect was also observed for Video 2. Truth tellers had fewer inconsistencies than the other two conditions.com by guest on November 5. The pattern is that open-ended questions took longer to answer. 142) = 12. and an interaction. p = .028 936 352 260 48 1 171 214 202 165 197 575 758 751 183 176 47 2 748 1. Video 1 Adj. p = .2-3 1-2.1-3. p = . Question Type.078 (yes–no M = 74. F(2. p = . rehearsal often reduced response times below those of truth tellers.2-3     Questions Yes–no questions General Video 1 Video 2 Adj. For open-ended questions. For yes–no questions. ή = .33.001.001.

truth tellers had significantly more movement than rehearsed liars. F(1. A main effect for lie condition happened. ή = . ή = .61 46 0. 126) = 3. an effect for type of question occurred.034. ή = . lie condition mattered. Regarding Video 2. 128) = 3. 133) = 5. F(2. lie condition had an impact. Adjusted vertical means are reported in Table 3. the largest means are observed with truth tellers.023.39. For Video 1.047.65. open-ended M = 57).75 0. Reduced condition Ns were usually due to loss of calibration of point of regard caused by head movements. Corresponding adjustments were also done for the horizontal eye movement data of both videos.003. open-ended M = 57). Lie condition had an impact. 133) Downloaded from cjb. Truth tellers generally had more eye movements. Regarding Video 2.028. Table 4 summarizes horizontal eye movements. Open-ended questions elicited more eye movements (yes–no M = 52. F(2.20 0. F(2. F(1.052.042. question type generated a main effect. a significant interaction occurred.002.032.80 45 SD 0. F(2.083.48 50 0.04 0. ή = . 131) = 3. These analyses partially support H3. In the case of yes–no questions. F(2.1-3   H3: EYE MOVEMENT Vertical eye movements.00 0.91     Means Significantly Different None 1-2. There was also a lie condition main effect. open-ended M = 58).00 0. by which yes–no questions elicited less eye movement (yes–no M = 50.058.78 Rehearsed Lying M 0. As in Table 3. Rehearsed liars had less eye movements the other two conditions.17.00 0. p = . For yes–no questions.071 (yes–no M = 50. For Video 1. Open-ended questions entailed slightly more eye movements.99. ή = .14 47 SD 0.24. 133) = 3. p = . ή = . For adjusted vertical eye movements of Video 1. Truth tellers had significantly more eye movements than rehearsed liars. p = .015.sagepub. F(2. p = . 131) = 6.089.69 49 SD 0. See Table 3 for statistics on vertical eye movements. F(2.071. Adjusted horizontal means appear in Table 4. p = . 128) = 4.61.49 Unrehearsed Lying M 0.88.20 0. ή = .044. ή = .93 0. Horizontal eye movements. The same was done for the open-ended means as well as for Video 2. p = . 2012 .com by guest on November 5.06. 133) = 6. a main effect occurred for type of question. especially for yes–no questions. p = .1-3   1-2. truth tellers had significantly more eye movements than rehearsed or unrehearsed liars. p = . 133) = 10.898   Criminal Justice and Behavior TABLE 2: Total Inconsistency Lie Condition   Questions General Video 1 N Video 2 N Truth Telling M 0. Also. p = . Adjusted Video 1 eye movements were calculated by subtracting the general yes–no vertical eye movement means from the yes–no Video 1 vertical eye movement means.04 47 0. F(1. which did not affect the assessment of pupil dilation. ή = .002. A significant Question Type × Lie Condition interaction occurred as well.00 0.035.52.

Truth tellers had significantly more eye movements than rehearsed liars with yes–no questions.102.009. F(2. ή = . but no effect of lie condition.24. Video 1 N Adj. Mixed support was obtained for H3.1-3   1-3   1-3   1-3.078. For the adjusted Video 1 horizontal eye movements.051. 2-3       None   None   1-3   None   1-3. F(3.008. lie condition was significant. the same pattern of significant differences was found for vertical (Table 3) and horizontal (Table 4) eye movements. Lie condition was significant.062. Importantly. ή = . ή = . p = .93. 129) = 4. Video 2 N   M 53 45 67 43 60 42 14 43 5 42 1 58 45 64 43 62 42 5 43 4 42 1 SD 40 45 46 39 36 M 44 47 44 46 46 42 0 46 2 42 2 50 47 58 46 51 42 8 46 1 42 2 SD 36 40 43 31 28 M 54 45 40 47 37 47 –14 45 –18 45 3 49 45 49 47 42 47 0 45 –6 45 3 SD 45 36 34 38 41 36 38 40 36 31 36 43 37 27 28 35 36 34 30 34 = 4. Rehearsed liars had less eye movement than unrehearsed liars and truth tellers.005.59. F(1. Open-ended questions elicited more eye movement (yes–no M = 50. p = . there was a main effect for question type. Video 2 N   Open-ended questions General N Video 1 N Video 2 N Adj. 95) = 3.Walczyk et al. truth tellers tended to have the most eye movements. Video 1 N Adj. ή = . For the videos. a significant interaction occurred. 133) = 5. 2-3     Questions Yes–no questions General N Video 1 N Video 2 N Adj. p = .32. ή = . Downloaded from cjb. 2012 . F(1. with an interaction.016. F(2. 131) = 5.059.071.022. open-ended questions elicited the most eye movements. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    899 TABLE 3:  Vertical Eye Movements (in pixels) Lie Condition   Truth Telling Unrehearsed Lying Rehearsed Lying     Means Significantly Different   None   1-2. Truth tellers moved their eye more than rehearsed liars.04.018. p = .com by guest on November 5. p = .95. p = .14.sagepub. F(2. Whether or not means were adjusted. For Video 2. Truth tellers had more eye movements than either rehearsed or unrehearsed liars with yes–no questions only. 129) = 6. and yes–no question tended to produce the best discrimination across conditions.059. ή = . Regarding adjusted Video 2 horizontal means. 131) = 2. open-ended M = 54). p = .

For Video 2.900   Criminal Justice and Behavior TABLE 4:  Horizontal Eye Movements Lie Condition   Truth Telling Unrehearsed Lying Rehearsed Lying     Means Significantly Different   55 45 70 43 63 42 14 43 6 42 1 60 45 67 43 66 42 5 43 5 42 1 41 40 41 38 32 47 47 45 46 49 43 –2 46 1 43 2 52 47 60 46 54 43 8 46 3 43 2 37 39 46 37 34 53 45 43 47 38 47 –9 45 –16 45 3 50 45 48 47 44 47 –1 45 –5 45 3 42 43 36 34 33 None   1-2. p = . 142) = 12. Video 1 N Adj. For Video 1. ή = .513. 1-3   1-3   1-3   1-3.049.001.72. 142) = 3.029. F(1. open-ended M = 69).sagepub. openended questions involved more pupil dilation. p = . 2-3       None   None   1-3   None   1-3. For truth tellers.187.16. ή = .081 (yes–no M = 65.com by guest on November 5. ή = . Lie condition had no impact. 2012 . but not for rehearsed liars. Lie condition had no effect.001. Downloaded from cjb.62. open-ended M = 67). The simple main effects across question type were not significant. p = . 142) =. However. p = . F(2. H4 was not supported. Video 2 N   Open-ended questions General N Video 1 N Video 2 N Adj. 142) = 32. Rehearsing answers apparently equated the cognitive load of answering across question types. Video 2 N   M SD M SD M SD 40 42 37 37 28 34 43 42 27 29 36 36 39 32 33 H4: PUPIL DILATION DURING DECEPTION Table 5 summarizes pupil dilation. A significant interaction occurred. F(2. open-ended questions entailed more pupil dilation.850. pair-sample t tests across lie conditions clarified the interaction.55. there was a main effect for question type. 142) =. p = . 2-3     Questions Yes–no questions General N Video 1 N Video 2 N Adj. F(2.67. Open-ended questions involved more pupil dilation (yes–no M = 67. F(1. Video 1 N Adj. which also occurred for unrehearsed liars.

Walczyk et al. 2007. Video 2’s discriminant model was also significant. Condition means are reported in Table 6. They served as the IVs. Given recent concerns with the polygraph’s validity (DePaulo et al. 2012 . Lykken. Downloaded from cjb. the testimony of eyewitnesses has several threats to its validity. All but the open-ended eye movement means were significant. Only adjusted IV means were used (Walters. Wells & Olson. Rows of IVs with significant models are italicized. Wilks’s Lambda =. Ns were reduced by only including observations that have complete data for all the IVs. along with the results of one way ANOVAs comparing them.77. 33% accuracy expected by chance. p = . these results show across videos that the adjusted cognitive cues of this research. 69% of the sample was classified accurately. p = . NRC. unrehearsed liars. and rehearsed liars. 1998.001.81. Overall. The false negative rate (liars misclassified as truth tellers) was 17%. along with inconsistencies.. Wilks’s Lambda =. assessed the collective potential of the cognitive cues except pupil dilation. DISCUSSION Though highly valued by juries (Bond & DePaulo.sagepub. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    901 TABLE 5:  Pupil Dilation (in pixels) Lie Condition   Truth Telling Unrehearsed Lying Rehearsed Lying     Means Significantly Different   67 66 64 48 1 65 67 66 48 1 19 18 18 67 67 68 47 2 66 70 69 47 2 14 12 16 70 67 66 50 3 69 70 66 50 3 20 16 16 None None None       None None None     Questions Yes–no questions General Video 1 Video 2 N   Open-ended questions General Video 1 Video 2 N   M SD M SD M SD 16 18 18 14 14 17 20 17 16 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSES Two exploratory discriminant analyses.com by guest on November 5. with three levels: truth tellers. The discriminant model of Video 1 was significant. Lie condition was the dependent (grouping) variable for both. one for each video. 2003. 1996) and inconsistency totals. 67% of the sample was accurately classified. especially misidentification (Loftus. as was the false negative rate at 14%. perform well beyond chance and with low false positive rates. 2003). The false positive rate (truth tellers misclassified as liars) was 9%. The rate of false positive was very close to that of Video 1 at 8%. 2006). Perjury is the most pernicious threat and an impediment to evenhanded justice.001.

34       Adjusted yes–no response times Video 1 Video 2 Adjusted open-ended response times Video 1 Video 2 Total Video 1 inconsistency Total Video 2 inconsistency Adjusted vertical eye movements Yes–no Video 1 Video 2 Open-ended Video 1 Video 2 Adjusted horizontal eye movements Yes–no Video 1 Video 2 Open-ended Video 1 Video 2 N for Video 1 N for Video 2 Truth Telling M –43.93 5. ANOVAs in italicized rows have p values < .10 356.237     13.51 0. and pupil dilation. a method of lie detection designed to induce cognitive load selectively on liars (Walczyk et al. rehearsed or unrehearsed.51 45 40 –9.sagepub.17 5.221     .001     .00 –15.57 446.001 .001 .13 5.27 –5.05 0.24 0. RESPONSE TIME The longer response times hypothesized to occur with deception.05 1.001 .51 –1.28 45 44 4. thereby reducing perjury.. when questioned.020 .82 M –78.. 2003. We sought to help refine TRI-Con. Littlepage & Pineault.47 26.902   Criminal Justice and Behavior TABLE 6: Lie Condition Means and ANOVA Results for Independent Variables of the Discriminant Analyses Lie Condition Unrehearsed Rehearsed Lying Lying M 192.79 4.g. this study is the first to examine its effects on multiple cognitive cues: response time.62 0.15 8.52 12. 2003).80 569. Participants adopted the roles of eyewitnesses of videos of actual thefts and then told the truth or lied.95 0.90 37. 2005).79 2. Downloaded from cjb.68 F 15. an effective alternative lie detector would benefit the criminal justice system by uncovering deception during interviews.40 31.04 0.45 5.03 5. 2012 .05 and were used in discriminant analyses..352 .66 247.71 204.06 1.79 –0. were confirmed.40 42 41 –0.46 4. 1985.008   .95 8. especially unrehearsed.92 1.96 2.401 .001   .12   p   ..94 –17. answer consistency.49 6.62 –13.02 –6. a valuable cue to deception (DePaulo et al.59 0. The analyses suggest the individual and collective value of most of these cues for lie detection.54 16.49 4. 1981).02 4.45 Note. although others have considered the effects of rehearsal on deception detection (e. Response time. 1986.57 0. Littlepage et al.43 0.001 .com by guest on November 5.73 23.05 –110..008   . eye movements.09 7.49 8.003 . O’Hair et al.62 9. Moreover.

replicating previous studies (Walczyk et al. 1981. INCONSISTENCIES This hypothesis was generally supported.. The two lying conditions did not differ.sagepub. open-ended questions may generally have imposed greater cognitive loads. Likewise. For open-ended questions. Walczyk et al. rehearsed liars answered the quickest. 1996). 2009). except for a nonsignificant difference between truth tellers and unrehearsed liars for Video 2. Still. truth tellers had significantly fewer than rehearsed or unrehearsed liars across videos. Walczyk et al.. Downloaded from cjb. the present data showed that the inconsistencies are often subtle. These findings suggest that open-ended questions involving eyewitness accounts can provide better cues than yes–no questions. That rehearsed liars did not differ significantly from truth tellers may partially reflect that answers to yes–no questions are syntactically constrained.. 2003). making them most appropriate for lie detection examinations.. 2010). Although the frequencies of inconsistencies were low across question categories. Seemann. but not across question types. the former should cause more load. they did help distinguish truth tellers from liars. especially when deceptions are unrehearsed. 2009). 2000.. For the yes–no questions. Walczyk et al. The adjusted yes–no scores showed the same pattern as the unadjusted ones but also control for individual differences (Walters. Unrehearsed liars were the slowest. For the unadjusted open-ended response times of both videos. 2012 . This pattern was maintained with the adjusted open-ended scores. open-ended questions will not always impose greater cognitive load. For instance. the greater are the opportunities for cues to deception to manifest (DePaulo et al. (2009) and Vrij et al. they reported flipping an answer from yes to no or vice versa to make it untrue. Importantly. in this study. more thought was given to the plausibility of answers due to their greater range of possible responses. Importantly. For yes–no and open-ended questions. replicating others’ findings (O’Hair et al. Roper. which may not have been sufficiently cognitive load inducing to provoke many contradictions.. Video 1 and Video 2 had only five and four interrelated question pairs.” Having to answer under time restriction may maximize inconsistencies as question interrelatedness increases. and Humphrey (2003) observed that lying to yes–no questions was less cognitively demanding in general than lying to open-ended questions according to participant self-reports of lie construction. Sporer & Schwandt. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    903 Seymour et al. (2010) both found more inconsistencies in liars than truth tellers. was the best one of those we evaluated. total inconsistency depends on how many interrelated questions are asked and the depth of their logical interdependence. owing to fewer syntactic and more plausibility constraints. open-ended questions elicited longer response times than yes–no questions.Walczyk et al. respectively. which future research can explore. Also. Even so. blurting “he” instead of “she. followed by truth tellers. 2005. the same general pattern of group differences of Video 1 was replicated with Video 2 (see Table 1). That open-ended question response times were significantly below those of truth tellers implies that the use of rehearsal is a detectable countermeasure for this question type. the less constrained the response.com by guest on November 5. unrehearsed liars took significantly longer to answer than both truth tellers and rehearsed liars.. In short. which can multiply the cues to deception (Vrij et al. Also. For yes–no questions. if answering a yes–no question truthfully requires retrieval of a truth long-dormant but an open-ended question accesses a truth of a recent event. Why? Walczyk. 2007). rehearsal is an effective cognitive load-attenuating countermeasure as assessed by response time.

sagepub. Researchers have nonetheless found more pupil dilation in lying (Bradley & Janisse. Glenberg et al. Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps. One problem in this study may have been that dilation reflected not only cognitive load but emotional arousal as well (DePaulo et al. If cognitive lie detection examination procedures become standardized. it is evident that the largest unadjusted vertical eye movement means occurred for truth tellers’ yes–no and open-ended questions of both videos. truth tellers had more eye movement than rehearsed liars with yes–no questions. but do not support it with the smallest means tending to go with rehearsed liars. 2000). Webb et al. 1998). As noted above. On examining the vertical eye movements of Table 3 and the horizontal movements of Table 4. For Video 2. Expanding on this notion.. the greater pupil dilation hypothesized with deception was not observed. eye movements were analyzed into vertical and horizontal components. For instance.com by guest on November 5. Searching memory for rehearsed lies may require less environmental distraction than unrehearsed lying. For Video 1. it may be the most confounded index of cognitive load. 2002. the same pattern of significant differences held across tables. yes–no questions of truth tellers entailed greater eye movements than unrehearsed and rehearsed liars. Lubow & Fein. 2001. the novelty of the procedure and the stress of having to maintain eye contact may have been sufficiently arousing. we predicted less eye movements for liars because their high cognitive loads focused on internal processing would have them reducing environmental distraction. Adjusting means support this hypothesis in that the largest means tend to be with truth tellers. their eyes often must be stationary. We expect that well-rehearsed lies will have eye movement rates exceeding those of truth tellers. Truth tellers were expected to have the most eye movements. 1976... The present data show that eye movements can distinguish truth tellers from liars and run contrary to the stereotype that liars are shifty-eyed (Vrij. Importantly. 2010). PUPIL DILATION Surprisingly. to have overshadowed small group differences due to lying.. liars’ loads were presumed high due to having to maintain eye contact (Vrij et al.904   Criminal Justice and Behavior EYE MOVEMENTS The hypothesis that truth tellers would have the most eye movements was partially supported. though.. especially for yes–no questions. 2009). 2012 . truth tellers moved their eyes more than rehearsed liars for both question types. Future research should try to replicate these results and assess the effects of extensive rehearsal of lies on eye movements. For Video 2. The unadjusted means thus partially supported this hypothesis. although the differences were not always significant. Because of the ETL 400’s design. The adjusted yes–no means retained the same general pattern of truth tellers having the most eye movements and surprisingly showed that rehearsed liars had less eye movements than unrehearsed liars. For Video 1. Dionisio et al. Heilveil. Given its utility in past studies. rehearsed liars had less than truth tellers and unrehearsed liars for both question types. it will likely become less ambiguous as an index of the cognitive load of deception. Of the cues of this research. 1996. 2005. Stimulation from the environment can be distracting and impair internal processing (Doherty-Sneddon et al. In addition to having to generate or recall deceptive answers. 1979. Downloaded from cjb. sometimes rehearsed liars had the least eye movements likely to minimize environmental distraction. even for truth tellers. researchers should continue to examine it.. Out of cognitive necessity. which we believe helped them recall their prepared lies. 2003).

The best discriminators for response times involved open-ended questions. suggestive of attempted load reduction.. Measuring the amount of processing. The polygraph has been refined over many decades. NRC. response time is a direct consequence of cognitive load (Solso. and unrehearsed liars. 2002. Only research aimed at refining averting-rehearsal. whereas TRI-Con and similar techniques (see Vrij. Moreover. 2001). so do social skills (Walczyk et al. and combined approaches will realize their potential.sagepub. Our explanation follows.com by guest on November 5. Collectively they discriminated among truth tellers. our research contributes by also considering the effects of rehearsal on eye data. In contrast. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    905 EXPLORATORY DISCRIMINANT ANALYSES The verbal skills of liars moderate the efficiency of lie generation (Walczyk et al. Specifically. The processing reduction caused by rehearsal could not be matched with the constrained yes–no questions. Truth tellers have the most eye movements. but rehearsal of atypical responding (e.. rehearsing responses lightens cognitive load more for unconstrained responding than for constrained responding. Admittedly. causing the long responses times. lying) produces the most interference and need for focused attention when response options are highly constrained.. lawyers.. but gaze aversion and eye movements reflect attempts to manage load (Doherty-Sneddon et al. 2005. rehearsed liars. 2000).Walczyk et al. but differently. Will judges. 2008) are new. Rehearsed liars have eye movements dramatically below those of general questions. We controlled for them by following the recommendation of Walters (1996). Even so. Downloaded from cjb. but also dramatic reduction in processing below that of truth telling when lies are rehearsed. Adjusted yes–no means for unrehearsed liars are close to those of general questions (near zero). 1998). Stated generally. This account must be verified by future research. along with inconsistency data. dual tasking. which are a problem with the polygraph and a major reason for its limited use in the criminal justice system (Lykken. Glenberg et al. 2003). (2009) demonstrated the value of adjusted response times and inconsistency totals as discriminators. some polygraph validity studies have achieved higher classification accuracies than those of this research (Lykken... we caution readers against dismissing prematurely TRI-Con and other cognitive load-inducing lie detection techniques. 2005) and other individual differences (Vrij. 2003). Eye movements and response times both index cognitive load. whereas for eye movements they were with yes–no questions.g. Fisher et al. Minimal syntactic constraint on answers to open-ended questions likely required extended memory search for plausible lies for unrehearsed liars. Reduced eye movements for yes–no questions may reflect rehearsed liars’ lessening of environmental distraction to focus on overcoming the Stroop-like interference of giving mildly practiced responses that were incompatible with a habitual behavior: answering truthfully syntactically constrained yes–no questions. Table 6 reveals an interesting contrast. only response time and eye movement means adjusted by means of general questions were used to estimate discriminant functions. 1998). Some encouraging findings for TRI-Con are the low rates of false positives we observed. Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps. Table 6 shows a much greater range of adjusted eye movement means across lie conditions for yes–no questions than for open-ended questions. 1998. reflecting minimal need to reduce load. 2012 . USING TRI-CON WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM There are many legal and psychological obstacles to the adoption of new forensic technologies like cognitive-load-inducing lie detection techniques. although Walczyk et al.

too. more refinement of TRICon is needed. prisoners). For instance. the public’s initial reaction to the invasiveness of the polygraph was negative. 2006). These instructions might induce inordinately high levels of anxiety and be distracting within these cultures (McCarthy. even for truth tellers. prompting.com by guest on November 5. That is. Moreover. if a suspect provides an alibi that police believe is false. The rehearsal of truthful responses is rare in authentic contexts but should be added as a condition in future research. Itakura. and imposes concurrent tasks that interfere selectively with lying may make question-level detection a reality. tell the truth) and level of rehearsal (rehearsed. Future refinement of load-inducing approaches that adds cognitive cues. Still. 2012 . & Muir. the asking of questions. the device was eventually accepted (Lykken. (2005) noted that the cognitive cues to an individual question may be too unreliable at present to support such precise lie detection. even if they become well validated? Having to answers questions under the guidelines of TRICon might not be accepted by professionals initially. However.g. to put this in a historical perspective. determining whether an examinee is answering honestly or lying rehearsed or unrehearsed can be done using statistical procedures like logistical regression or discriminant analyses. the motivation of our participants to appear truthful was not as high as that of actual witnesses lying to protect someone. defendants. and the assessment of cues can be largely automated. Rather. as in this research. they likely will be accepted. a series of yes–no and open-ended questions could be written based on the alibi-probing details the individual may not have anticipated. Lee. Future research testing TRI-Con and similar approaches should increase the incentive for lying by offering cash rewards to participants who can deceive while appearing sincere. However. readers can discern the effects of lie instructions by comparing unrehearsed liars and truth tellers and can consider the effects of level of rehearsal by comparing rehearsed and unrehearsed liars. then interactions between these factors could have been examined. tweaks the procedures to prevent rehearsal further.906   Criminal Justice and Behavior victims. 1998). and eye movements can discriminate truth tellers from rehearsed and unrehearsed liars. Walczyk et al. Moreover. inconsistency. suspects. they were not fully crossed in a 2 × 2 factorial design. If TRI-Con and other load-inducing techniques can prove their worth. especially on authentic samples and involving high stakes lies. Unlike the polygraph. Also.. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS A few limitations are noteworthy. Another limitation relates to instructions to maintain eye contact. lie detection did not occur at the level of the question.sagepub. However. and witnesses accept TRI-Con and similar approaches. the promising results of this study justify more research on TRI-Con and other cognitive loadinducing techniques with the hope of uncovering deception during interviews of witnesses and thereby reducing perjured testimony. it occurred for question set. Still. Of course. as well as test more authentic samples (e. Downloaded from cjb. Had there been one. these might be ineffective with Japanese and other non-Western cultures for whom such eye contact goes against a societal norm. Finally. the present data suggest that response times. unrehearsed). there was no rehearsed. truth teller condition. Another limitation is the fact that two factors were actually manipulated in this research under the IV lie condition: lie instructions (lie. TRI-Con has potential to assess truthfulness and deception wherever short answers can be given.

who came into the office and talked with the perpetrator? 21) What was the perpetrator’s race? 22) Was the perpetrator a woman? 23) What was the perpetrator’s job-related reason for being in the office? 24) Was the perpetrator wearing a baseball cap? 25) What was the perpetrator’s criminal act? 26) Approximately what was the perpetrator’s age? 27) Was the perpetrator wearing shorts? 28) Was the perpetrator wearing formal black shoes? Video 2 Questions Question pairs involving inconsistencies: 29-33. 30-35 29) What was the criminal act? 30) Was the perpetrator a man? 31) Was the perpetrator Asian? 32) What was the race of the clerk behind the counter? 33) How did the perpetrator try to conceal the criminal act? 34) Where did the criminal act take place? 35) What did the perpetrator and the clerk talk about? 36) Was the perpetrator wearing a hat? 37) At the time of the crime. 30-33. 5-10. 7-17 1) What was president Washington’s first name?* 2) Is Independence Day celebrated during August? 3) Is it possible for a person to be burned when operating an oven? 4) What is your last name? 5) What is your age? 6) What is your biological mother’s first name? 7) In what city is the White House located? 8) You received your GED or graduated from high school in what year? 9) What is your gender? 10) Were you born before the year 1979? 11) What is your race? 12) Are you a freshman? 13) Is our current president’s first name Leo? 14) Are you a student? 15) Can an oven get hot? 16) On what date does the United States celebrate Independence Day? 17) Is Los Angeles the location of the White House? 18) What is the name of city of the Louisiana state capital? Video 1 Questions Question pairs involving inconsistencies: 19-20. 2012 . 3-15. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    907 Appendix General and Video-Related Questions General Questions Question pairs involving inconsistencies: 2-16.Walczyk et al. 19-28. 22-25 19) What job did the perpetrator have? 20) Following the crime.sagepub. 19-23. Boldfaced general questions have verifiable truths. 22-23. 29-34. how many were visible in the store? Note.com by guest on November 5. Downloaded from cjb.

.. Loftus. & Janisse. S. Shafto. H. & Hartwig. (1998). & Herrero. 651-658. and Law.908   Criminal Justice and Behavior REFERENCES Anastasi. Journal of Social Psychology. G. A. Bruce.. McCarthy. & Hurley. M. (2000). International Journal of Psychology. M.sagepub. Witnesses appearing live versus on video: Effects on observers’ perception. Criminal interrogation and confessions..W. Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Granholm.. The effect of certainty on detection. M. (2007). Doherty-Sneddon. Law and Human Behavior. Deception and pupil size. (1994). Doherty-Sneddon. E. (1985).. Cultural display rules drive eye gaze during thinking. (2007). (2001). O’Sullivan. A. L.. 727-733. & Schwandt. 1-14). M.. & Muir. (1976). L.. G. Washington. Tang. (2004). E. 164-177. J. L. (2006). G. 530-538. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (1986). B. A. I. W. D. Seymour. Lindsay. 1-34. Needham Heights. 38. S. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Nonverbal and content factors in the detection of planned and spontaneous communications. Cues to deception. P. 438-445. 601-611. social skills and physical characteristics on impression formation. & Schwandt.. C. L. E. A. G.. B. A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Hayne (Eds. Prepared lies. M. & McLaughlin. M. (1998). DePaulo. W. and academic freedom (pp. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior. & Pineault. 205-211. 220-244.. DC: National Academies Press. Porter. 74-112. D. E. F. (2010). and nonverbal communication. (1979). Applied Cognitive Psychology. S. D. 7. 10. 38. J. Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. 16. P. Chichester. MA: Allyn & Bacon. G. R.. 129. Mahwah. Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge. Public Policy. 33. K. G.). 125. A. spontaneous lies... Applied Cognitive Psychology. H.. Psychological Bulletin. (1997). L. Stromwall.. 26. (2003). J. 39. Solso. Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition.. 33. R. M... C M..). (2004). Downloaded from cjb. Credibility judgments and detectives: The impact of nonverbal behaviour. G. Memory distortions: Problems solved and unsolved. O’Hair. 717-722. L. UK: Wiley. K.. P. Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science. Pupil size and lie detection. Lee. M. 20. J. 1. & Robertson. Developmental Psychology.. Psychology. J. & DePaulo. Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering.. Pupillary size in response to a visual guilty knowledge test: New technique for the detection of deception. D. 19. Cody. C. D. J. Detecting lies and deceit. The substance of false confessions. Machiavellianism. 443-458. Sporer. 325-339. Landström. 33-39. M. 37. law. J.. & Jayne. Journal of Social Psychology. Longbotham. Garrett.. (2006). Personality and Social Psychology Review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. (2003). S.. M.. A. 62.. Vrij. NJ: Erlbaum. Bonner. & Pineault. MA: Harvard University Press. Schroeder. Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. Psychological testing. Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. T. 7. Hartwig. 2. (1996). Cognitive psychology (6th ed. Sporer. E. In M. New York. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.. V. (1996). M. 30-37.. A. Littlepage. B. Pashler. M. Psychological Bulletin.. (1979). F. P. Detection of deception of planned and spontaneous communications. S.. & Phelps. Eyewitness testimony. M. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. (2001). Buckley. Bradley. 32. (1993). L.. The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Police Quarterly.” Journal of Applied Psychology. D. Charlton. Development of gaze aversion as disengagement from visual information. C. 116. Psychophysiology. & Vrij.com by guest on November 5. Muhlenbruck. F. veracity assessments. B. C. W. Granhag. C. Malone. E. Lykken. (2009). Accuracy of deception judgments. 13. Seifert. B. L. B. Reid. M. Frank. The polygraph and lie detection. Gaithersburg. Vrij. Littlepage... (2001). 439-450.. (2006). 20. & Doyle.. & Fein. Bond. Stanford Law Review. 443-449.. Loftus. (2005). Inbau.. Itakura. National Research Council. 254-275. 2012 . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.. Dionisio. A.. E. Law and Human Behavior. L. Hillix. Jr. (2000). A. S. F. & Perrine. T. E. F. A. and memory.. E. A. Garrido. S. (1981). E. & Urbina. Heilveil. A. Glenberg. 421-446. NY: McGraw-Hill. Differentiation of deception using pupillary response as an index of cognitive processing. Granhag. 195-201.. & Yuille. Human Communication Research. 133. D. M. A. (2002). Upper Saddle River. T. MD: Aspen. B. Garry & H. 85.. L. J. Lubow. 913-933. Masip. 1051-1119. NJ: Prentice Hall. Cambridge. P. (2005). Memory & Cognition. 429-456. 214-234. & Mosmann. & Harris. C.

K. 16. 159-166.. J. Byron Simoneaux is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Louisiana Tech. J. E. D. In L. 39-43. L. & Griffith-Ross. A. (2003). Milne. Laura L. (2003). Walczyk is a professor of psychology at Louisiana Tech University. M. Law & Human Behavior. Leal. Downloaded from cjb. Formerly an editorial assistant of the Journal of Educational Psychology. (2008). Presently she is the administrative assistant at the Center for Secure Cyberspace of Louisiana Tech.. 58. Leal. & Humphrey.. J.. 32. Applied Cognitive Psychology. P. R. Berkowitz (Ed. P. 279-292. Vrij. “Look into my eyes”: Can an instruction to maintain eye contract facilitate lie detection? Psychology. S.Walczyk et al. Fisher. Harris is a doctoral student in counseling psychology at Louisiana Tech. Annual Review of Psychology. & Law.. Personnel Psychology. Wells.. Walczyk. He is former associate editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology. C. 141-170. A.. Kircher. Roper. P. Clifton.. A. 14. Walczyk. R. 755-774. P. / COGNITIVE DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN WITNESSES    909 Vrij. (2008). P.. K. Crime. A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Diana A. S. E. Fisher.. R. S. C. Mann. Jeffrey J.. J. A. R. Vrij. A. & Cook. & Bull. & Fisher. (1981).. (2010). 33. New York: Academic Press. B. & Rosenthal.. M. Walters. Adams.).com by guest on November 5. (2009).. Law & Human Behavior. K. M. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. R. Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. (2005). R. & Olson. S. & Leal. S. D. Hillman. J. Seemann.. A. & Sperry. Shelley R.. Doverspike. Mahoney. 54. J. 253-265. E.. Granhag. Fisher. Her research interests include the study of autism. Griffith is a research associate at Louisiana Tech. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. Walczyk.. Vrij. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. S. B. she writes grants and conducts research on deception. 33-49.. Schwartz.. New York. B. A. (2009). R. Mann. Wei. Journal of Business and Psychology. Leal. Rachel Yates received her master’s degree in industrial-organizational psychology in 2009. 2012 . 17.. Effectiveness of pupil diameter in a probablelie comparison question test for deception. DePaulo. 327-348.. Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. 1-59). M... Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation. (2009).. Legal and Criminal Psychology.. & Zha. G.sagepub.. Webb. Eyewitness testimony. Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Honts. A. S. J. 277-295... S. Bernhardt. R. B. 24. 14.. His research interests include cognitive and social aspects of deception as well as the psychology of reading. A. J. Outsmarting the liars: The benefits of asking unanticipated questions. T. (1996).. Visconte is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Louisiana Tech. Zuckerman. Mann. J.. Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. S. Mann... A. NY: CRC. pp.. K. His dissertation concerns gender differences in the attribution of deception in others. 5.