Is it possible detecting lies? Maybe yes

Abstract

This article will outline several techniques that may assist law enforcement personnel in detecting potential lies, particularly during interrogations. While current scientific consensus holds that no method (polygraph included) can reliably detect deception, certain strategies may help identify information that appears inconsistent or artificial. These indicators, while not definitive, could suggest with a reasonable degree of probability.

Although more than 150 articles are published each year by scientists on the topic of lie detection, the aim of this paper is not, at least for the time being, to establish a scientifically validated protocol for detecting deception. Rather, it seeks to provide an overview of the phenomenon and explore which practical strategies may be employed in day-to-day police work to reduce the likelihood of believing lies during an interrogation.

Introduction

Many people believe that lying is inherently undesirable, while others argue that, on rare occasions and for a justifiable reason, it may be acceptable to lie[1]. Although dishonesty is generally seen in a negative light, many individuals are confident in their ability to detect deception[2], and the motivations for lying are manifold.

We may lie for various reasons, but what captures our interest most is the concept of lie detection. Many people consider themselves to be skilled detectives and are well aware that experience sharpens their ability to spot deception. From this perspective, lying becomes something of a training ground: it is commonly believed that liars avoid eye contact or display nervous behavior. We might even pride ourselves on our abilities when we detect dishonesty in our children or partners, and the satisfaction we feel reassures us that our intuition, or “sixth sense”, has proven to be a reliable ally. 

As Vrij[3] stated in one of his books, 'Fortunately, we are well protected against them, because professional lie catchers are good at spotting such liars.' But is this truly the case? In light of scientific evidence, the answer is “no”. There are no infallible lie detectors, nor are there inherently poor liars. Rather, what we find are skilled deceivers and ineffective lie detectors. Deception can be undermined by a lack of motivation to lie, as well as by errors rooted in misguided beliefs about our own ability to deceive and to detect deception. In what follows, we will briefly outline some of the most persistent myths, still widespread today, that continue to create confusion and lie at the heart of many cognitive biases.

In a renowned short story by Edgar Allan Poe[4] (2009), the author recounts the confession of a man who has murdered an old man. The narrative’s pivotal moment unfolds during an intense interrogation with three police officers. The protagonist, initially composed, does his best to maintain his innocence, but the situation becomes increasingly strained as the officers remain seated directly above the hidden corpse. As the psychological pressure mounts, the murderer grows anxious and visibly distressed. The officers begin to suspect his guilt, and the tension culminates when the killer starts to hear what he believes is the victim’s heart beating beneath the floorboards. Convinced that the sound—actually the frantic beating of his own heart—can also be heard by the officers, he succumbs to guilt and ultimately confesses.

This phenomenon, more commonly known as the illusion of transparency[5] (Gilovich,, 1998), tends to lead individuals to underestimate their ability to deceive. This powerful cognitive bias renders people unable to fully grasp that their thoughts, emotions, and internal states are, in fact, concealed from an external observer. As a result, they mistakenly believe that their lies are easily detectable. Self-perception is often shaped by a positively biased illusion, whereby individuals tend to view themselves as more moral than others. Naturally, those who openly acknowledge being skilled liars deviate from this bias[6].

Another important issue concerns individuals' tendency to overestimate their ability to detect deception. Are we truly that efficient and effective at identifying lies and uncovering deceit? Robust empirical evidence suggests otherwise[7] (Verigin et. al 2019; Gray, 2011)[8]. Some scientist[9] (Vrij, 2007) have identified three major reasons that help explain why people tend to overrate their lie detection capabilities: limited motivation, inherent difficulties associated with detecting deception, and common errors frequently made by lie detectors.

Franz Kafka enthusiasts will recall that in his short story The Metamorphosis (2009)[10], Gregor Samsa, after undergoing his transformation, continues to behave as though nothing has changed, disregarding his new condition and the challenges it entails leading to both comical and tragic situations. As Kahan[11] (2015) puts it, the ostrich effect is responsible for Gregor’s lack of motivation to confront the truth. In this case, the truth is avoided because it may be uncomfortable, because its consequences are feared, or simply because Gregor would not know how to respond if he were to fully acknowledge it.

As we move closer to the core of our discussion, the difficulties associated with lie detection emerge as a highly complex phenomenon. As previously noted, many people believe that the ability to detect lies is rooted in verbal or nonverbal cues; however, some researchers have demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth (Mann et al., 2004)[12]. There is no certainty when it comes to detecting deception. In fact, some studies show that the success rate of lie detection among law enforcement officers is only slightly above chance—around 50%[13]. In other words, the equivalent of Pinocchio’s growing nose simply does not exist.

This is due to several fundamental reasons. First, this area of research remains relatively underexplored (Semrad et al., 2020)[14]. Second, widespread misconceptions about deception actually serve to strengthen it: experienced liars are well aware that, in order to avoid suspicion, they must maintain eye contact while speaking, and suppress nervous movements—strategies commonly employed by those intent on deceiving. Third, detecting lies is inherently difficult, and individuals frequently fail in this endeavor. Some author have identified at least eighteen different factors (Vrij et al., 2010)[15] that contribute to making someone a proficient liar, an observation that underscores just how many precautions are needed to reduce the likelihood of being deceived (Woody, 2020)[16].

A final category concerns the persistent errors made by lie detectors. 

As previously mentioned, many individuals devote considerable effort to identifying so-called “diagnostic” cues that they believe reliably indicate deception (e.g., the widespread belief that liars avoid eye contact). These false beliefs persist solely within the realm of folk psychology and are commonly held by laypeople. In a recent study (Melis et al. 2024)[17], several techniques were identified that may assist lie detectors in:

• Avoiding the use of myths and misconceptions about deceptive behavior;
• Developing a protocol capable of translating theoretical insights into empirically testable models;
• Objectively assessing the effectiveness of lie detection techniques, thereby standardizing both method and practice;
• Enhancing lie detectors’ awareness of their own skills and limitations;
• Reducing susceptibility to misjudgments, such as those caused by “fake good” or “fake bad” presentations.

It is important to clarify that the notion of objective assessment does not refer to the use of polygraphs or biofeedback-based methodologies. Instead, it concerns advanced approaches rooted in cognitive psychology. Empirical findings on the functioning of memory, attention, cognitive flexibility (i.e., the ability to switch between different stimuli), and reasoning processes provide a solid foundation for designing tailored tools capable of counteracting deceptive behaviors. These cognitive mechanisms offer a promising avenue for the development of refined instruments aimed at detecting deception with greater accuracy and reliability (Elliott et al 2016)[18].

Verbal and non verbal cues to deception

A famous quote by Freud states: "He who has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore” (Freud, 1959)[19]. According to this theory, verbal and nonverbal cues are intertwined, such that one does not betray the other, allowing the truth—though hidden—to emerge with relative ease. A metaphorical corollary of this principle can be found in the character of Pinocchio, whose nose elongates as a behavioral (and thus nonverbal) indicator of deception. However, there exists a variation known as the Pinocchio Paradox (Eldridge-Smith, 2010)[20], which draws on a fascinating reinterpretation of the classical Liar Paradox (Arenhart & Melo, 2022)[21].

The first reference to the consequences of lying appears in Chapter 17 of Collodi’s Pinocchio, where it is established that if Pinocchio lies, his nose will grow; conversely, if he tells the truth, his nose will shrink. Now, suppose Pinocchio says: “My nose is growing right now.” If he is telling the truth, then his nose should not grow—implying he is lying. But if he is lying, then his nose should grow, thereby making the statement true. This gives rise to the paradoxical question: is Pinocchio lying or telling the truth? Pinocchio’s nose grows if and only if what he is asserting is false. However, he asserts: “My nose is growing.” Thus, Pinocchio’s nose grows if and only if it is not growing. This is clearly a version of the Liar Paradox, but also an evident variant of the so-called “Truth-teller” paradox. Its distinctive feature lies in the fact that it does not rely on a semantic synonym of “truth” within a false statement. The nose’s growth is a physical (facial) characteristic rather than a semantic one.

Moreover, although the growth of Pinocchio’s nose occurs precisely when he is lying, the relationship is not semantic. It may be causal or of another kind, but it is not a semantic dependency. The nose grows because he is lying—not as a linguistic synonym of “falsehood.” The statement “is growing” is not synonymous with “is false,” and the story of Pinocchio remains fully intelligible without presuming that “is growing” holds a special meaning beyond its literal interpretation.

This paradox, while consistent with other paradoxes stemming from the same logical structure[22], reveals a great deal about the nature of lying even prior to the identification of behavioral cues. In this context, paradoxes serve as powerful tools, illustrating how logic itself can at times elude truth.

A first principle can be stated using the words of a leading author in the field of lie detection “The verbal cues lie tellers spontaneously report during interviews are weak and unreliable.” (A. Vrij, 2023, p. 245)[23]

However, there are strategies that can help reduce the likelihood of accepting a false statement as true, or dismissing a true statement as false. At a micro-level, both verbal and nonverbal cues can provide valuable information.

On Nonverbal Cues

At the nonverbal level, the multifactor model proposed by Zuckerman (1981)[24] suggests that several factors contribute to the detection of deception. These include:

1. Emotional arousal;
2. Cognitive load;
3. Behavioral control;

Feelings such as guilt, fear, disappointment, and excitement can influence a liar’s behavior in various ways. For example, guilt may result in reduced eye contact, diminished body orientation (i.e., the degree to which the torso and head are oriented toward the interlocutor), and a decrease in illustrative gestures—those that accompany and support speech. 

Excitement, on the other hand, may lead to behavioral signs of joy, such as increased bodily movement and smiling. Fear can increase physiological arousal, which in turn may produce observable cues such as increased blink rate, self-adaptors (e.g., touching one's clothes, hair, or face), speech hesitations (e.g., “um” and “er”), pronunciation errors (e.g., stuttering, word repetition, word omissions), and changes in vocal pitch (i.e., a higher fundamental frequency of speech).

With regard to cognitive load, a large body of research [25](Spence et al., 2001; Christ et al., 2009)[26] has suggested that deception typically requires greater mental effort than truth-telling. This is due in part to the additional cognitive demand involved in crafting a narrative that leaves no room for ambiguity. However, this process warrants a more in-depth discussion.

As early as 1885, the renowned scholar Hermann Ebbinghaus[27] demonstrated that memory traces tend to decay over time. This finding, which has since become a cornerstone in the study of memory (Röhrs, 2022)[28], supports the view that memory is not a linear process, but rather something greater than the simple sum of its recalled elements. This model implies two key principles: a) the number of items that can be recalled is inherently limited and
b) this limit is more pronounced for newly learned material than for information acquired through natural experience (i.e., we tend to recall autobiographical memories more easily than learned content).

From this, it becomes evident that any additional demand on memory increases cognitive effort. A sustained increase in cognitive load, therefore, becomes difficult to maintain over time—an insight that has practical implications in investigative settings. For example, during certain interrogations, individuals may be asked to perform a secondary task while responding to questions. This dual-task approach imposes a heavy cognitive burden, often leading individuals to revert to truthful responses, which are cognitively less demanding to access and articulate[29] (Gullberg et al 202) [30].

Therefore, unlike truth-tellers, liars cannot assume that their falsehoods will be believed over time and this is true for at least two reasons. The first concerns the motivation to avoid negative consequences: for instance, a drug dealer will attempt to appear honest and will do everything possible to maintain that impression. In other words, liars often try to get away with deception through what has been described as the illusion of transparency, the mistaken belief that their honesty is more apparent than it truly is (Granhag, Strömwall, & Hartwig, 2007[31]; Kassin, 2005[32]; Kassin & Gudjonsson[33], 2004).

Second, liars tend to overload their memory, particularly during interrogations, as they attempt to monitor the reactions of their interviewers in real time in order to calibrate the extent and content of their deception (Weikmann et al, 2025)[34].

With regard to behavioral control, the experienced liar will attempt to adjust their behavior based on the perceived meaning of specific actions within a given context, in order to appear credible—even though this is not an easy task (Gurbanli, 2024)[35].

This objective is proportional to the ultimate purpose of lying (Krstić, 2024)[36]: it is evident that when the stakes are high, the lie will be crafted with particular attention to detail. The reverse is also true—when the stakes are low, the principle of avoiding detection still applies.

Finally, behavioral control is understood as an attempt to influence others by leading them to believe one’s statements, achieved through the "study" of the victim’s personality (Beattie, 2024)[37].

Another theoretical perspective (DePaulo, 2004)[38] argues that both truth-tellers and liars share a common goal: to be believed. Consequently, individuals who tell the truth, much like those who lie, experience a significant cognitive load and emotional effort in order to appear credible, driven by the conviction that their statements are sincere and that the truth should not be denied.
On the other hand, liars are less likely to take being believed for granted and therefore invest less effort in displaying behaviors aimed at asserting the truth.

Taking credibility less for granted implies that liars, more so than truth-tellers, are inclined to believe that it is important to make a convincing impression on others. As a result, they tend to be more concerned with how they are perceived compared to those who tell the truth.

On verbal cues

In everyday life, the content of discourse is often distorted. A demonstration of this phenomenon is found in the Dunning-Kruger[39] effect, a cognitive bias that leads individuals to overestimate their own abilities and to overlook their limitations, often resulting in the expression of judgments and consequently, the spread of false information. Although this effect is only tangentially related to verbal indicators of deception, it illustrates how difficult it can be to distinguish a deliberate lie from an unintentional falsehood.

As previously mentioned, false statements are defined as knowingly and deliberately untrue assertions made in order to avoid unpleasant consequences. While this distinction may seem obvious, in interrogation contexts these factors are frequently confused, leading to false positives and false negatives. False positives refer to innocent individuals wrongly identified as guilty, whereas false negatives occur when guilty individuals are mistakenly judged to be innocent.

Based on these considerations, verbal cues of deception have a significant impact on determining the truth and the consequences that follow from it.

Some scholars have proposed specific individual verbal cues which, to date, are incorporated into validated tools used by professionals in the field (Vrij, 2019)[40]. These verbal indicators include:

1. Negative States: These reflect aversive reactions toward something or someone perceived as potentially threatening, often expressed through words conveying disgust or a generally negative mood. As previously discussed in the context of nonverbal cues, negative states can also be communicated behaviorally, giving them a dual significance. Liars may have greater control over the expression of these states, while truth-tellers tend to regulate them less consciously.
2. Generalizing Terms: Imprecise expressions such as “often,” “never,” “always,” or “sometimes” do not convey a clearly defined quantity. This vagueness allows for adjustment during the course of an interrogation. Moreover, the ability to strategically use such terms may differ between liars and truth-tellers, with liars potentially being more adept at manipulating these adverbs to fit their narrative.
3. Self-Referential Language: Similar to generalizing terms, the use of self-referential pronouns such as “I” and “me” may indicate a tendency to center the narrative on oneself in order to justify one’s position. This tendency is associated with the idea that liars may exhibit fewer moral inhibitions about deception, and therefore rely more heavily on their own perspective while paying less attention to the viewpoint of others.
4. Immedicacy: This refers to responses that are direct and relevant to the interlocutor, respecting interpersonal distance and avoiding evasiveness or detachment. Immediacy is more difficult to detect reliably, as liars are often highly motivated to appear convincing—sometimes even more so than truth-tellers. Additionally, individuals who are telling the truth may experience anxiety about not being believed, which can lead them to display behaviors that are consistent with immediacy, thereby complicating interpretation.
5. Response Length: Liars tend to study the personality of their target and engage in a high degree of self-monitoring, which allows them to assess whether a clear and verbose style is more effective than a disjointed, incoherent one. The latter style—characterized by fragmented or loosely connected words—is more frequently observed in truth-tellers, particularly when they are anxious about their credibility being overshadowed or dismissed in the face of deception.
6. Plausible Responses: These refer to answers that align with what the interviewer commonly expects to hear. Some authors (Masis et al., 2018)[41] investigated the use of plausible responses in a large sample (over 500 participants) and found that liars tend to repeat the same story consistently. This repetition is a strategy to avoid contradictions and to prevent offering inconsistent or confabulatory responses.
7. Lexical Diversity: Lexical diversity in liars is defined as the ratio between the number of different words used and the total number of words in a given statement. These measures were introduced by Vrij (2008)[42] as part of efforts to develop tools capable of providing an objective assessment of the linguistic pragmatics employed by liars as compared to truth-tellers.
8. Consistency: This element has been extensively investigated by researchers (Deck et al., 2020)[43]. Consistency refers to the degree to which identical informational details are provided either by the same person across different accounts or by two independent individuals. This criterion is frequently employed in investigative interviews and police interrogations, particularly when objective evidence is lacking. In such cases, a sufficient number of converging elements are sought to reconstruct the historical truth of the events.

Relevant details can be central, pertaining to the core of the event (e.g., whether it occurred during the day or at night) or peripheral (e.g., what kind of shoes the perpetrator wore). These details are closely connected to other indicators, such as: a) Immedicacy, since a short, direct, and precise response is more likely to be interpreted as truthful than one that is slow, vague, or tangential, b) Generalizing Terms, as vague spatial or temporal expressions may signal a lack of detail and therefore a narrative that can be more easily modified by the liar, c) Lexical Diversity, because liars often prefer to repeat the same version using the same words in order to avoid altering the meaning of their statement.

It is important to stress that these indicators should be applied primarily in the absence of objective evidence or when the reconstruction of events relies heavily on witness testimony (Oxburgh, 2011)[44].

1. Latency: The latency period refers to the amount of time an individual takes to respond to a question. For example, when asked to state their own name and surname, the response time is typically short. However, if asked about the day associated with their zodiac sign, a truthful person is likely to respond immediately, whereas a deceiver unprepared for such a question will generally require more time to formulate an answer.
2. Contradictions: can be defined as a lack of continuity between different elements within a single statement or across multiple statements, such that the semantic units stand in an antagonistic relationship to one another. In contradiction, unlike coherence, a genuine semantic "derailment" occurs among the constituent elements of the statement, leading to a disruption in the logical structure of the narrative that undermines its causal framework.

It is important to note that contradiction is not necessarily a pathological indicator, nor should it always be interpreted negatively; it can also be related to the normal functioning of memory. For instance, in a police report, a victim initially states they were robbed of their wallet, which contained identification documents, and that the perpetrator was wearing a blue t-shirt. When asked for further details, the victim claims to have seen nothing else. However, several weeks later, when contacted by the police regarding the recovery of the stolen documents, the victim now reports that the assailant was wearing white Nike shoes and had a scar on his right arm. If the victim had previously stated that they saw nothing more, does this not constitute a contradiction?

Science tells us otherwise. The recall of additional details not included in the initial report is not necessarily indicative of deception or cognitive dysfunction, but rather can reflect a normotypical memory process (Kensinger, 2009)[45]. Recall is a physiological function that can be influenced by multiple factors such as attention, emotional engagement, and the organization of information (Petrucci et al 2021)[46]. At the time of the event, excessive arousal may impair the immediate retrieval of useful information for suspect identification a phenomenon considered entirely normal.

However, suspicion may be warranted in cases where, during reports of highly emotionally charged events, an unusually large number of detailed elements are provided all at once at the beginning of the statement. Such accounts may merit further scrutiny, as they deviate from typical patterns of memory processing and retrieval.

Based on the available literature, the analysis of a set of verbal cues has enabled researchers to classify, with an accuracy ranging from 67% to 80%, whether an individual is telling the truth or lying[47] (Bond et al., 2005; Loconte et al., 2025)[48], demonstrating promising potential for future research.

Unexpected answers as a possible predictor of the lies

Within the domain of interrogation techniques, various protocols have been developed, each of which should ideally be included in personnel training programs to optimize their application. However, some authors[49](Vrij et al., 2014; Warmelink et al., 2019)[50] have proposed specific strategies designed to be implemented by law enforcement officers during interrogations even in the absence of prior training, with the aim of assessing whether the interviewee is being truthful.

The technique presented here is based on a nonverbal cue previously discussed: cognitive load. This term refers to a demand placed on memory that exceeds typical cognitive processing capacity. For example, drivers can usually operate their vehicles while conversing with a passenger without any noticeable effort. However, imagine a driver who, while navigating through a city full of intersections, is simultaneously required to solve a complex logic problem. At the very least, the driver is likely to miss a turn and deviate from the intended route. This occurs because their memory is managing a dual-task demand: attending to navigation while simultaneously solving a cognitively demanding task. The key point is that the logic task consumes substantial cognitive resources, thereby reducing the availability of attentional resources (specifically prospective memory) needed to achieve the goal namely, making the correct turn at a specific intersection.

A similar mechanism is observed in the case of unexpected questions (Leppink[51], 2020; Fenn et al., 2020)[52]. This technique centers on the unpredictability of the questions posed. From this perspective, the "unexpected question technique" can be effectively implemented in investigative interviewing to enhance the accuracy of deception detection. When confronted with unanticipated questions, truth-tellers tend to respond instinctively, whereas deceivers struggle to fabricate plausible answers on the spot without prior rehearsal.

These questions can cover a range of topics—from future behavioral intentions, such as: “I want you to think back to when you planned your errand. Tell me about your planning process, and be as detailed as possible” (Sooniste et al 2015)[53]; to spatiotemporal details, for example: “Relative to the front door, where were you and your friend sitting?” (Vrij, 2009)[54]; to specific personal information, such as: “Is Venice the capital of your region of residence?”. The key advantage of using such questions is that they effectively disrupt the deceiver's narrative.

A recent study by Melis et al. (2024)[55] revealed a notable difference between two groups one instructed to answer truthfully and the other to fabricate responses based on a narrative. Analyzing response latencies[56], deceptive participants exhibited significantly longer delays compared to truthful ones, even when responding to control questions. 

This approach suggests that unexpected questions are particularly effective at eliciting cues to deception, as they reduce the deceiver’s ability to prepare misleading responses in advance. In other words, honest participants consistently demonstrated shorter reaction times and fewer errors, likely because their answers were based on actual memories rather than fabricated accounts.

The strategy of reducing cognitive load by preparing for an interview—anticipating potential questions and formulating answers in advance—is only effective if the deceiver can accurately predict the questions that will be asked. The effectiveness of this technique is well supported (Leins et al 2011)[57], with studies demonstrating a 71% success rate in distinguishing truth from deception—a significant improvement over the 56% success rate observed with traditional methods (Vrij et al 2017)[58].

Conclusion

In the preceding sections, we briefly discussed common myths about deception, the reasons why lies are difficult to detect, and the measures that can be adopted to improve their identification.

It is evident that these measures grounded in a broad body of scientific literature not only provide valuable insights for professionals in the field but also offer the opportunity to:

• Adopt evidence-based strategies for lie detection;
• Conduct more accurate and effective interrogations;
• Revise existing manuals to incorporate standardized techniques such as those previously discussed;
• Establish training programs aimed at increasing personnel's knowledge and awareness of the psychology of deception;
• Provide the criminal court with a richer set of details through procedures that ensure a significantly higher degree of reliability compared to traditional methods;
• More broadly, promote the development of a professional identity characterized by attention to detail and methodological rigor.

In order to temper the wave of enthusiasm, it is important to reiterate that these techniques do not constitute a panacea for lie detection. While the probability of success is considerable, much remains to be done to enhance our understanding and refine the available tools—potentially including the integration of artificial intelligence.

[1] In all the article I will use the terms lying and deception interchangeably;

[2] Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 17(3), 349-363;

[3] Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.

[4] Poe, E. A. (2009). Tell-tale heart. ABDO Publishing Company;

[5] Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(2), 332;

[6] Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 17(3), 349-363;

[7] Verigin, B. L., Meijer, E. H., Bogaard, G., & Vrij, A. (2019). Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars. PloS one, 14(12), e0225566;

[8] Gray, R. (2011). Lies, liars, and lie detection. Fed. Probation, 75, 31;

[9] Vrij, A. (2011). Deception: A social lubricant and a selfish act. In Social communication (pp. 309-342). Psychology Press.

[10] Bloom, H. (Ed.). (2009). Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis. Infobase Publishing.

[11] Kahn, W. (2015). The ostrich effect: Solving destructive patterns at work. Routledge.

[12] Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 137;

[13] Ibid, pag. 99;

[14] Semrad, M., & Scott-Parker, B. (2020). Police, personality and the ability to deceive. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 22(1), 50-61;

[15] Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Mann, S. (2010). Good liars. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1-2), 77-98;

[16] Woody, W. D., & Forrest, K. D. (2020). Understanding police interrogation: Confessions and consequences (Vol. 4). NYU Press.;

[17]Melis, G., Ursino, M., Scarpazza, C., Zangrossi, A., & Sartori, G. (2024). Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 12268.

[18] Elliott, E., & Leach, A. M. (2016). You must be lying because I don’t understand you: Language proficiency and lie detection. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 22(4), 488.

[19] (Freud, S. (1959). Collected papers.(5 vols.)., p. 94);

[20] Eldridge-Smith, P., & Eldridge-Smith, V. (2010). The pinocchio paradox. Analysis, 70(2), 212-215;

[21] Arenhart, J. B., & Melo, E. S. (2022). The liar paradox: Between evidence and truth. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 31(2), 289-311;

[22] Consider, for example, Russell’s paradox: in this case, the author argues that the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members belongs to itself only if it does not belong to itself.;

[23] Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2023). Interviewing to detect lies about opinions: the Devil’s Advocate approach. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(12), 245-252.

[24] Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Driver, R. (1981). Beliefs about cues associated with deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 105-114;

[25] Spence, S. A. et al. Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport 12, 2849–2853 (2001);

[26]Christ, S. E., Van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E. & McDermott, K. B. The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: Evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cerebral Cortex 19, 1557–1566 (2009);

[27] Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das gedächtnis: untersuchungen zur experimentellen psychologie. Duncker & Humblot;

[28] Röhrs, S. (2024). Memory Studies. Handbuch Kulturwissenschaftliche „Studies “, 379;

[29] Gullberg, K., Johansson, V., & Johansson, R. (2024). In Scriptura Veritas? Exploring measures for identifying increased cognitive load in speaking and writing. Languages, 9(3), 85.

[30] In practice, however, certain cognitive strategies can partially mitigate this effort. One such strategy is subvocal rehearsal—that is, the continuous mental repetition of information related to an event—which can enhance the resilience of memory against cognitive load;

[31] Granhag, P. A., Str¨omwall, L. A. & Hartwig, M. (2007). The SUE technique: The way to interview to detect deception. Forensic Update, 88, January, 25–29;

[32] Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228;

[33] Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67;

[34] Weikmann, T., Greber, H., & Nikolaou, A. (2025). After deception: how falling for a deepfake affects the way we see, hear, and experience media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 187-210. 

[35] Gurbanli, J. (2024). Impression management following a major crisis event: structured literature review.

[36] Krstić, V. (2024). Lying by Asserting What You Believe is True: a Case of Transparent Delusion. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 15(4), 1423-1443.

[37] Beattie, G. (2024). Lies, Lying and Liars: A Psychological Analysis. Taylor & Francis

[38] DePaulo, B. M. (2004). The many faces of lies. The social psychology of good and evil, 303-326.

[39] Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247-296). Academic Press

[40] Vrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160-167.

[41] Masip, J., Martínez, C., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Sánchez, N., Herrero, C., & Ibabe, I. (2018). Learning to detect deception from evasive answers and inconsistencies across repeated interviews: A study with lay respondents and police officers. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2207;

[42] Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, second edition. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons;

[43] Deck, S. L., & Paterson, H. M. (2020). Liars are perceived as more credible than truth‐tellers who recall a repeated event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(3), 643-653;

[44] Oxburgh, G. E., & Dando, C. J. (2011). Psychology and interviewing: what direction now in our quest for reliable information?. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13(2), 135-144;

[45] Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emotion review, 1(2), 99-113;

[46] Petrucci, A. S., & Palombo, D. J. (2021). A matter of time: how does emotion influence temporal aspects of remembering?. Cognition and Emotion, 35(8), 1499-1515;

[47] Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners' truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 313-329;

[48]Loconte, R., Battaglini, C., Maldera, S., Pietrini, P., Sartori, G., Navarin, N., & Monaro, M. (2025). Detecting Deception Through Linguistic Cues: From Reality Monitoring to Natural Language Processing. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 0261927X251316883.

[49] Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129-136.

[50] Warmelink, L., Subramanian, A., Tkacheva, D., & McLatchie, N. (2019). Unexpected questions in deception detection interviews: Does question order matter?. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 258-272.

[51] Leppink, J. (2020). Revisiting cognitive load theory: Second thoughts and unaddressed questions. Scientia Medica, 30(1).

[52] Fenn, E., McGuire, M., Langleben, S., & Bland_on-Gitlin, I. (2015). A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1298.

[53] Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2016). Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(2), 344-357.

[54] Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and human behavior, 33, 159-166.

[55]Melis, G., Ursino, M., Scarpazza, C., Zangrossi, A., & Sartori, G. (2024). Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 12268.

[56] See point 9 on the verbal cues

[57] Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2011). Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 253-265.

[58] Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1-21.