Perceived memory credibility: The role of details

The sharing of personal memories is a unique aspect of the human experience. Humans communicate to provide information, to influence, or even to amuse. How do we distinguish between credible and noncredible narratives? Forensic science has identified race, age, and detail quantity as influential. We do not know how the nature of narrated details impacts believability. We report two studies investigating how detail composition influences credibility ratings using definitions of details suggested by Levine et al. (2002). Internal details are directly connected to the episodic aspects of the memory, while external details refer to semantic facts or depictions not directly related to the main event. A total of 825 participants rated narratives that varied detail number and type for perceived credibility or saliency. Episodic memory details enhanced credibility more than semantic memory details. In addition, within episodic memories, person-related details enhanced credibility more than non-person-related details. Our results suggest a lens through which to view the credibility of what we hear and read.

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls

This study examined the use of machine learning in detecting deception among 210 individuals reporting homicides or missing persons to 911. The sample included an equal number of false allegation callers (FAC) and true report callers (TRC) identified through case adjudication. Independent coders, unaware of callers' deception, analyzed each 911 call using 86 behavioral cues. Using the random forest model with k-fold cross-validation and repeated sampling, the study achieved an accuracy rate of 68.2% for all 911 calls, with sensitivity and specificity at 68.7% and 67.7%, respectively. For homicide reports, accuracy was higher at 71.2%, with a sensitivity of 77.3% but slightly lower specificity at 65.0%. In contrast, accuracy decreased to 61.4% for missing person reports, with a sensitivity of 49.1% and notably higher specificity at 73.6%. Beyond accuracy, key cues distinguishing FACs from TRCs were identified and included cues like "Blames others," "Is self-dramatizing," and "Is uncertain and insecure."

Veracity Judgments Based on Complications: A Training Experiment

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers' accounts than in lie tellers' accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers' veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants' judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

Assessing the efficacy of baselining in deception detection: A comparative analysis of the reality interview and structured interview

Detecting deception is challenging; there exists no universal cue that gives away deceit and people vary greatly in how they communicate. One way to potentially improve deception detection is by comparing multiple responses of the same individual to identify verbal deviations - a method known as baselining. This study examined the impact of baselining embedded in a specific interview protocol to improve lie detection. Participants (N = 179) viewed mock crimes and were instructed to lie or tell the truth about what they witnessed. Next, they were interviewed including a truthful baseline (Reality Interview Modified: RIM), or no baseline (Reality Interview: RI; Structured Interview: SI). Results showed that truth tellers in the SI and RI conditions provided more details than liars during free recall, while no detail differences emerged for the RIM condition. Follow-up questions in all conditions showed truth tellers offered more details than liars. Surprisingly, we found no evidence that verbal deviations from a baseline can be used as effective indicators of deception. In sum, further research is needed to explore the best application of baselining for lie detection purposes.

(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?

In the last decade there has been a proliferation of research on misinformation. One important aspect of this work that receives less attention than it should is exactly why misinformation is a problem. To adequately address this question, we must first look to its speculated causes and effects. We examined different disciplines (computer science, economics, history, information science, journalism, law, media, politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology) that investigate misinformation. The consensus view points to advancements in information technology (e.g., the Internet, social media) as a main cause of the proliferation and increasing impact of misinformation, with a variety of illustrations of the effects. We critically analyzed both issues. As to the effects, misbehaviors are not yet reliably demonstrated empirically to be the outcome of misinformation; correlation as causation may have a hand in that perception. As to the cause, advancements in information technologies enable, as well as reveal, multitudes of interactions that represent significant deviations from ground truths through people's new way of knowing (intersubjectivity). This, we argue, is illusionary when understood in light of historical epistemology. Both doubts we raise are used to consider the cost to established norms of liberal democracy that come from efforts to target the problem of misinformation.

Revisiting Deception in Breonna Taylor's Case: A Cognitive-Acoustic Approach

The present paper proposes an eclectic model for examining the cognitive load involved in detecting deception that benefits from the acoustic dimension as an exercise in cognitive forensic linguistics. The corpus used is composed of the legal confession transcripts of the Breonna Taylor's Case, a 26-year-old African-American woman worker who was shot dead by police officers in Louisville, Ky., in March 2020 during a crackdown on her apartment. The dataset comprises transcripts and recordings of the persons involved in the shooting event but have given unclear charges, and those accused of contributory negligence due to wanton misfiring. The data is analyzed based on the video interviews and reaction times (RT) as an application of the model proposed. The findings reveal that the episodes chosen and how they are analyzed exhibit that the modified ADCM along with the acoustic dimension provide a clear picture of cognitive load management in the course of constructing and producing lies.

All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil's Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about protester actions

We examined the Devil's Advocate lie detection method which is aimed at detecting lying about opinions. In this approach, participants give reasons for why they hold an opinion in the eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their opinion in a devil's advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported their true opinion about protestor actions, whereas lie tellers (n = 55) reported the opposite of their true opinion. Answers were coded for number of arguments and plausibility, immediacy, clarity and scriptedness. Data were analysed with analyses of variance with veracity being the sole factor. Supporting the hypothesis, truth tellers provided more pro-arguments than lie tellers and to all eliciting-opinion questions their answers sounded more plausible, immediate and clear than lie tellers' answers. The opposite pattern was predicted for the devil's advocate question but not found, likely caused by the simplification of the question. Neither was being scripted a diagnostic veracity indicator.

Financial Fraud and Deception in Aging

Financial exploitation among older adults is a significant concern with often devastating consequences for individuals and society. Deception plays a critical role in financial exploitation, and detecting deception is challenging, especially for older adults. Susceptibility to deception in older adults is heightened by age-related changes in cognition, such as declines in processing speed and working memory, as well as socioemotional factors, including positive affect and social isolation. Additionally, neurobiological changes with age, such as reduced cortical volume and altered functional connectivity, are associated with declining deception detection and increased risk for financial exploitation among older adults. Furthermore, characteristics of deceptive messages, such as personal relevance and framing, as well as visual cues such as faces, can influence deception detection. Understanding the multifaceted factors that contribute to deception risk in aging is crucial for developing interventions and strategies to protect older adults from financial exploitation. Tailored approaches, including age-specific warnings and harmonizing artificial intelligence as well as human-centered approaches, can help mitigate the risks and protect older adults from fraud.

Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations

Introduction

Forensic interviewing entails practitioners interviewing suspects to secure valid information and elicit confessions. Such interviews are often conducted in police stations but may also occur in field settings such as border crossings, security checkpoints, bus terminals, and sports venues. Because these real-world interviews often lack experimental control and ground truth, this investigation explored whether results of non-forensic interviews generalize to forensic ones.

Methods

Organizational espionage was simulated to determine (1) what verbal signals distinguish truth from deception, (2) whether deception in groups aligns with deception in dyads, and (3) whether non-forensic venues can be generalized to forensic ones. Engaging in a mock hiring deliberation, participants (4-5 strangers) reviewed and discussed resumes of potential candidates. Surreptitiously, two group members assigned the role of "organizational spies" attempted to persuade the group to hire an inferior candidate. Each group member presented notes from an interview of "their" candidate, followed by a discussion of all candidates. Spies were to use any means possible, including deception, to persuade others to select their candidate. A financial incentive was offered for having one's candidate chosen. The interview reports and discussions were transcribed and analyzed with SPLICE, an automated text analysis program.

Results

Deceivers were perceived as less trustworthy than truth-tellers, especially when the naïve players won but overall, deceivers were difficult for non-spies to detect even though they were seen as less trustworthy than the naïve participants. Deceivers' language was more complex and exhibited an "echoing" strategy of repeating others' opinions. This collusion evolved naturally, without pre-planning. No other verbal differences were evident, which suggests that the difference between spies and non-spies was subtle and difficult for truth-tellers to spot.

Discussion

Whether deception can be successfully detected hinges on a variety of factors including the deceiver's skill to disguise and the detector's ability to sense and process information. Furthermore, the group dynamics and communication context subtly moderate how deception manifests and influence the accuracy of detecting ulterior motives. Our future investigations could encompass non-verbal communication channels and verbal patterns rooted in content, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of deception detection.

In their own words: deception detection by victims and near victims of fraud

Aim

Research on deception detection has usually been executed in experimental settings in the laboratory. In contrast, the present research investigates deception detection by actual victims and near victims of fraud, as reported in their own words.

Materials and methods

Our study is based on a nationally representative survey of 11 types of (mostly) online fraud victimization (N = 2,864). We used qualitative information from actual victims and near victims on why they didn't fall for the fraud, or how, in hindsight, it could have been prevented.

Results

The main detection strategies mentioned by near victims (N = 958) were 1) fraud knowledge (69%): these near victims clearly recognized fraud. Other strategies related to fraud knowledge were: noticing mistakes (27.9%), rules and principles about safe conduct (11.7%), and personal knowledge (7.1%). A second type of strategy was distrust (26.1%). A third strategy was 'wise through experience' (1.6%). Finally, a limited number of respondents (7.8%) searched for additional information: they contacted other people (5.5%), sought information online (4%), contacted the fraudster (2.9%), contacted their bank or credit card company (2.2%), or contacted the police (0.2%). Using knowledge as a strategy decreases the probability of victimization by a factor of 0.43. In contrast, all other strategies increased the likelihood of victimization by a factor of 1.6 or more. Strategies generally were uncorrelated, several strategies differed by type of fraud. About 40% of the actual victims (N = 243) believed that their victimization might have been prevented by: 1) seeking information (25.2%), 2) paying more attention (18.9%), 3) a third party doing something (16.2%), 4) following safety rules or principles, like using a safer way of paying or trading (14.4%), or by 5) 'simply not going along with it' (10.8%). Most of these strategies were associated with a higher, not lower, likelihood of victimization.

Conclusion

Clearly, knowledge of fraud is the best strategy to avoid fraud victimization. Therefore, a more proactive approach is needed to inform the public about fraud and attackers' modus operandi, so that potential victims already have knowledge of fraud upon encountering it. Just providing information online will not suffice to protect online users.

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future

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

The Effect of Heuristic Cues on Jurors’ Systematic Information Processing in Rape Trials

There is concern that jurors’ decisions in rape trials might be influenced by misleading cues (e.g., victim stereotypes) potentially explaining disproportionately low conviction rates. We investigated the bias hypothesis from the heuristic–systematic model as an explanation for how jurors may be influenced by misleading stereotypes even while they are effortfully processing rape trial evidence. We expected that when case evidence was ambiguous, stereotypes would guide motivated participants’ effortful information processing, but not when case evidence was strong. Mock jurors ( N = 901) were asked to make decisions about a rape trial with either ambiguous or strong evidence in which the complainant was either stereotypically distressed or unemotional giving evidence. Participants were either placed under high motivation conditions to encourage effortful information processing or in a control condition with low motivation instructions to encourage less effortful processing as a comparison. Participants’ information processing and case decisions were measured as key dependent variables. We found partial support for the hypothesized interaction and the bias hypothesis, suggesting that the types of evidence participants attended to in decision-making were influenced by misleading stereotypical cues. Our findings have implications for interventions to reduce the effect of misleading stereotypes on decisions in rape trials. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221118018 .

Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?

Adolescents, as active online searchers, have easy access to health information. Much health information they encounter online is of poor quality and even contains potentially harmful health information. The ability to identify the quality of health messages disseminated via online technologies is needed in terms of health attitudes and behaviors. This study aims to understand how different ways of editing health-related messages affect their credibility among adolescents and what impact this may have on the content or format of health information. The sample consisted of 300 secondary school students (M_age = 17.26; SD_age = 1.04; 66.3% female). To examine the effects of manipulating editorial elements, we used seven short messages about the health-promoting effects of different fruits and vegetables. Participants were then asked to rate the message’s trustworthiness with a single question. We calculated second-order variable sensitivity as the derivative of the trustworthiness of a fake message from the trustworthiness of a true neutral message. We also controlled for participants’ scientific reasoning, cognitive reflection, and media literacy. Adolescents were able to distinguish overtly fake health messages from true health messages. True messages with and without editorial elements were perceived as equally trustworthy, except for news with clickbait headlines, which were less trustworthy than other true messages. The results were also the same when scientific reasoning, analytical reasoning, and media literacy were considered. Adolescents should be well trained to recognize online health messages with editorial elements characteristic of low-quality content. They should also be trained on how to evaluate these messages.

Power and lie detection

Social power undermines focus on others and increases reliance on stereotype-consistent information. Thus, power may enhance focus on stereotypical cues to deception, thereby decreasing lie detection accuracy. In three studies, we tested whether having power affects lie detection accuracy. Participants (overall N = 502) were asked to identify truthful and lying candidates (N = 12) during mock job interviews. Study 1 was a field experiment involving employees who held managerial and non-managerial positions (N = 88). In the following laboratory experiments, we manipulated power and asked participants to imagine themselves as managers (Study 2, N = 214) or provided them with control over resources and the ability to reward others (Study 3, N = 200). In Studies 2 and 3, we additionally manipulated the method of lie detection (direct vs. indirect). In contrast to the original hypotheses, we found that power led to increased veracity assessment accuracy. Having power over others enhances the accuracy of one’s veracity assessment, although this increase is small and limited to lie detection (Study 1) or direct judgments (Studies 2 & 3). Together, power affects the processing of social information and what aspects of this information are taken into account.

The tangled webs they weave: A scoping review of deception detection and production in relation to Dark Triad traits

People deceive for different reasons, from avoiding interpersonal conflicts to preserving, protecting, and nurturing interpersonal relationships, and to obtaining social status and power. A growing body of research highlights the role of personality in both deception detection and production, with a particular focus on high Dark Triad (DT) traits (Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy), for their shared tendency to engage in unethical self-benefitting behaviors, despite negative consequences for others. The main goal of the current scoping review was to bring together the studies investigating self-reported and performance-based deception production and detection performances, as presented in individuals characterized by high DT traits and point out the possible contribution of DT to deception research. To do so, we identified the relevant studies documenting the similarities and discrepancies between the three personality traits and presented their results, based on the procedure used for deception assessment: subjective or objective measurements for production / detection. Then, we discussed possible explanatory mechanisms for inter-individual differences in lie detection / production and argue for the contribution of DT to deception research beyond the typical personality models, particularly for the antisocial character of deception.

The Science of Lie Detection by Verbal Cues: What Are the Prospects for Its Practical Applicability?

There is agreement among researchers that no simple verbal cues to deception detectable by humans have been demonstrated. This paper examines the evidence for the most prominent current methods, critically considers the prevailing research strategy, proposes a taxonomy of lie detection methods and concludes that two common types of approach are unlikely to succeed. An approach to lie detection is advocated that derives both from psychological science and common sense: When an interviewee produces a statement that contradicts either a previous statement by the same person or other information the authorities have, it will in many cases be obvious to interviewer and interviewee that at least one of the statements is a lie and at the very least the credibility of the witness is reduced. The literature on Strategic Use of Evidence shows that features of interviews that foster such revelatory and self-trapping situations have been established to be a free account and the introduction of independent information late and gradually into the proceedings, and tactics based on these characteristics constitute the best current general advice for practitioners. If any other approach 1 day challenges this status quo, it is likely to be highly efficient automated systems.

The Use of Pupillometry in Autobiographical Implicit Association Test

The Autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT) is a reaction time-based methodology to assess one's recognition of the truth value of propositions about an autobiographical episode. This study introduced pupillometry to examine its utility as an additional measure of aIAT. Participants blindly chose one of two cards and memorized it. They then underwent the aIAT to assess the cards they chose. The pupil diameter was larger in the block in which sentences related to the chosen card shared the same response key with sentences describing false events than the block in which sentences related to the chosen card shared the same response key with true-event sentences. Although preliminary, pupil measurement also yielded high efficiency in discriminating the chosen card. These results indicate that pupillometry can be used as a measure of aIAT.

Do Not Tell Me More; You Are Honest: A Preconceived Honesty Bias

According to the previous literature, only a few papers found better accuracy than a chance to detect dishonesty, even when more information and verbal cues (VCs) improve precision in detecting dishonesty. A new classification of dishonesty profiles has recently been published, allowing us to study if this low success rate happens for all people or if some people have higher predictive ability. This paper aims to examine if (dis)honest people can detect better/worse (un)ethical behavior of others. With this in mind, we designed one experiment using videos from one of the most popular TV shows in the UK where contestants make a (dis)honesty decision upon gaining or sharing a certain amount of money. Our participants from an online MTurk sample (N = 1,582) had to determine under different conditions whether the contestants would act in an (dis)honest way. Three significant results emerged from these two experiments. First, accuracy in detecting (dis)honesty is not different than chance, but submaximizers (compared to maximizers) and radical dishonest people (compare to non-radicals) are better at detecting honesty, while there is no difference in detecting dishonesty. Second, more information and VCs improve precision in detecting dishonesty, but honesty is better detected using only non-verbal cues (NVCs). Finally, a preconceived honesty bias improves specificity (honesty detection accuracy) and worsens sensitivity (dishonesty detection accuracy).

Deception and Lie Detection in the Courtroom: The Effect of Defendants Wearing Medical Face Masks

During the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants and witnesses (as well as the prosecution and defense counsel) may wear medical face masks to prevent the spread of the virus. Alternatively, courtrooms proceedings may take place virtually. In this article, we discuss how these deviations from normal procedures may affect jurors' lie detection ability and decision-making. Although research addressing this specific question does not exist, we are able to formulate an informed view based on the extensive deception literature. Since nonverbal signs of deception in the face and body are virtually absent, we conclude that medical face mask-wearing or virtual courtroom proceedings will not hamper jurors' lie detection abilities. If jurors can hear the speech well, they may become better at detecting deception if they pay more attention to speech content, which may occur as a result of mask-wearing in the courtroom.

Sitting in Judgment: How Body Posture Influences Deception Detection and Gazing Behavior

Body postures can affect how we process and attend to information. Here, a novel effect of adopting an open or closed posture on the ability to detect deception was investigated. It was hypothesized that the posture adopted by judges would affect their social acuity, resulting in differences in the detection of nonverbal behavior (i.e., microexpression recognition) and the discrimination of deceptive and truthful statements. In Study 1, adopting an open posture produced higher accuracy for detecting naturalistic lies, but no difference was observed in the recognition of brief facial expressions as compared to adopting a closed posture; trait empathy was found to have an additive effect on posture, with more empathic judges having higher deception detection scores. In Study 2, with the use of an eye-tracker, posture effects on gazing behavior when judging both low-stakes and high-stakes lies were measured. Sitting in an open posture reduced judges’ average dwell times looking at senders, and in particular, the amount and length of time they focused on their hands. The findings suggest that simply shifting posture can impact judges’ attention to visual information and veracity judgments (M_g = 0.40, 95% CI (0.03, 0.78)).

Catching a Liar Through Facial Expression of Fear

High stakes can be stressful whether one is telling the truth or lying. However, liars can feel extra fear from worrying to be discovered than truth-tellers, and according to the "leakage theory," the fear is almost impossible to be repressed. Therefore, we assumed that analyzing the facial expression of fear could reveal deceits. Detecting and analyzing the subtle leaked fear facial expressions is a challenging task for laypeople. It is, however, a relatively easy job for computer vision and machine learning. To test the hypothesis, we analyzed video clips from a game show "The moment of truth" by using OpenFace (for outputting the Action Units (AUs) of fear and face landmarks) and WEKA (for classifying the video clips in which the players were lying or telling the truth). The results showed that some algorithms achieved an accuracy of >80% merely using AUs of fear. Besides, the total duration of AU20 of fear was found to be shorter under the lying condition than that from the truth-telling condition. Further analysis found that the reason for a shorter duration in the lying condition was that the time window from peak to offset of AU20 under the lying condition was less than that under the truth-telling condition. The results also showed that facial movements around the eyes were more asymmetrical when people are telling lies. All the results suggested that facial clues can be used to detect deception, and fear could be a cue for distinguishing liars from truth-tellers.

How humans impair automated deception detection performance

BACKGROUND

Deception detection is a prevalent problem for security practitioners. With a need for more large-scale approaches, automated methods using machine learning have gained traction. However, detection performance still implies considerable error rates. Findings from different domains suggest that hybrid human-machine integrations could offer a viable path in detection tasks.

METHOD

We collected a corpus of truthful and deceptive answers about participants' autobiographical intentions (n = 1640) and tested whether a combination of supervised machine learning and human judgment could improve deception detection accuracy. Human judges were presented with the outcome of the automated credibility judgment of truthful or deceptive statements. They could either fully overrule it (hybrid-overrule condition) or adjust it within a given boundary (hybrid-adjust condition).

RESULTS

The data suggest that in neither of the hybrid conditions did the human judgment add a meaningful contribution. Machine learning in isolation identified truth-tellers and liars with an overall accuracy of 69%. Human involvement through hybrid-overrule decisions brought the accuracy back to chance level. The hybrid-adjust condition did not improve deception detection performance. The decision-making strategies of humans suggest that the truth bias - the tendency to assume the other is telling the truth - could explain the detrimental effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study does not support the notion that humans can meaningfully add the deception detection performance of a machine learning system. All data are available at https://osf.io/45z7e/.

Clusters of nonverbal behavior differentiate truths and lies about future malicious intent in checkpoint screening interviews

Recent research has shown that nonverbal behavior (NVB) assessed across multiple channels can differentiate truthtellers from liars. No study, however, has examined whether or not multiple NVBs can differentiate truths from lies about intent regarding future malicious behavior, or across multiple cultural/ethnic groups. We address this gap by examining truths and lies about intent to commit a malicious act in the future in brief, checkpoint-type security screening interviews. Data from four NVB channels producing twenty-one observable NVBs were coded and analyzed using different analytic strategies. Clusters of NVB were found to differentiate truthtellers from liars at statistically significant levels, and substantially beyond the ability of human observers. The findings showed that clusters of NVB can differentiate truthtellers from liars even in brief, checkpoint-type interviews.

The Limits of Conscious Deception Detection: When Reliance on False Deception Cues Contributes to Inaccurate Judgments

People are generally too trusting, which decreases their ability to detect deceit. This suggests that distrust could enhance our deception detection abilities. Yet, a state of distrust may induce deliberative conscious thought. This mode of thinking has been related to worse complex decision making. Hence, we investigate whether contextual distrust decreases the ability to detect deceit via the stronger reliance on consciously held beliefs about which cues betray deception. In two studies, participants were asked to judge videos of either deceiving or truth telling targets. Contextual distrust was manipulated by asking participants to squint their eyes (distrust) or to round their eyes (trust) while watching the videos. Participants’ judgments of targets being deceptive or truthful were measured (Studies 1 and 2) and they were asked on what basis they made these judgments (Study 2). Results showed that distrust especially hampers the detection of truth, which is partly due to more reliance on false beliefs about deception cues. These results corroborate the idea that deliberative conscious information processing may hinder truth detection, while intuitive information processing may facilitate it.

Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior

In this article, we attempt to unravel the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. First we will cite research demonstrating that observers believe lie tellers display more nervous behaviors than truth tellers; that observers pay attention to nervous behaviors when they attempt to detect deception; and that lie tellers actually feel more nervous than truth tellers. This is all in alignment with a lie detection approach based on spotting nervous behaviors. We then will argue that the next, vital, step is missing: Research has found that lie tellers generally do not display more than truth tellers the nervous behaviors laypersons and professionals appear to focus on. If observers pay attention to nervous behaviors but lie tellers do not come across as being nervous, lie detection performance is expected to be poor. Research has supported this claim. We finally discuss ideas for research into lie detection based on non-verbal behaviors.

The effects of a model statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews

Researchers started developing interview techniques to enhance deception detection in forensic settings. One of those techniques is the Model Statement, which has been shown to be effective for eliciting information and cues to deception in single interviews. In the current research, we focused on the effect of the Model Statement in multiple interviews. Participants (N = 243) were interviewed three times-each time one week apart-about a genuine (truth tellers) or fabricated (lie tellers) memorable event. They listened to a Model Statement at Time 1, Time 2, Times 1 and 2, or not at all. Hypotheses focused on participants' verbal reports at Time 3 and on unique details provided across the three interviews. In both instances, truth tellers provided more core and total details and complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and obtained higher proportion scores of (i) complications and (ii) core details than lie tellers. Complications and proportion of complications were the most diagnostic cues. The Model Statement was effective only when presented at Time 1, resulting in more common knowledge details. No Veracity × Model Statement interaction effects emerged.

Editors' Review and Introduction: Lying in Logic, Language, and Cognition

We describe some recent trends in research on lying from a multidisciplinary perspective, including logic, philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics, and artificial intelligence. Furthermore, we outline the seven contributions to this special issue of topiCS.

Cumulative Disadvantage: A Psychological Framework for Understanding How Innocence Can Lead to Confession, Wrongful Conviction, and Beyond

False confessions are a contributing factor in almost 30% of DNA exonerations in the United States. Similar problems have been documented all over the world. We present a novel framework to highlight the processes through which innocent people, once misidentified as suspects, experience cumulative disadvantages that culminate in pernicious consequences. The cumulative-disadvantage framework details how the innocent suspect's naivete and the interrogator's presumption of guilt trigger a process that can lead to false confession, the aftereffects of which spread to corrupt evidence gathering, bias forensic analysis, and virtually ensure wrongful convictions at trial or through pressured false guilty pleas. The framework integrates nascent research underscoring the enduring effects of the accumulated disadvantages postconviction and even after exoneration. We synthesize findings from psychological science, corroborating naturalistic evidence, and relevant legal precedents to explain how an innocent suspect's disadvantages can accumulate through the actions of law enforcement, forensic examiners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, and appeals courts. We conclude with prescribed research directions that can lead to empirically driven reforms to address the gestalt of the multistage process.

Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews

Research has shown that a comparable truth baseline (CTB) approach elicits more cues to deception and results in higher accuracy rates than a small talk baseline. Past research focused on laypeople's accuracy rates. We examined whether the CTB also has a positive effect on law enforcement personnel accuracy. In this study, 95 police officers judged 10 interviews, whereby half of the senders told the truth, and the other half lied about a mock undercover mission. Half of the interviews included only questioning about the event under investigation, whereas the other half also included questioning aimed at creating a CTB. Total and truth accuracy did not differ, but observers who watched interviews with a CTB obtained higher lie detection accuracy rates than those who watched interviews without the baseline questioning. Signal detection analyses showed that this effect could be attributed to a decreased response bias in the CTB condition.

Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception

The relationship between nonverbal communication and deception continues to attract much interest, but there are many misconceptions about it. In this review, we present a scientific view on this relationship. We describe theories explaining why liars would behave differently from truth tellers, followed by research on how liars actually behave and individuals' ability to detect lies. We show that the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered to date are faint and unreliable and that people are mediocre lie catchers when they pay attention to behavior. We also discuss why individuals hold misbeliefs about the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception-beliefs that appear very hard to debunk. We further discuss the ways in which researchers could improve the state of affairs by examining nonverbal behaviors in different ways and in different settings than they currently do.

Lessons From Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated

Deception researchers widely acknowledge that cues to deception-observable behaviors that may differ between truthful and deceptive messages-tend to be weak. Nevertheless, several deception cues have been reported with unusually large effect sizes, and some researchers have advocated the use of such cues as tools for detecting deceit and assessing credibility in practical contexts. By examining data from empirical deception-cue research and using a series of Monte Carlo simulations, I demonstrate that many estimated effect sizes of deception cues may be greatly inflated by publication bias, small numbers of estimates, and low power. Indeed, simulations indicate the informational value of the present deception literature is quite low, such that it is not possible to determine whether any given effect is real or a false positive. I warn against the hazards of relying on potentially illusory cues to deception and offer some recommendations for improving the state of the science of deception.

Detecting Lies via a Theme-Selection Strategy

Most of deception research has focused on past events that were either completely truthful or a complete fabrication. However, people often tell a mixture of truths and lies. This could enable investigators to make within-subjects comparisons between different themes discussed in one interview, which we examined in the current experiment. Seventy-three participants took part in the experiment and were asked to either tell the truth about two themes, or to tell the truth about one theme and lie about the second theme in a HUMINT setting. Results showed that examining the differences in the amount of detail provided by the interviewees for each theme- obtained through a Theme-Selection strategy (a within-subjects measure)- yielded stronger results than examining differences between truth tellers and liars based on the entire interview without accounting for themes (between-subjects measure). The present study therefore highlighted the effectiveness of within-subjects measurements to both discriminate truth tellers from liars and to discover which section of a statement is false.

Realism and constructivism in social perception

Jussim's critique of social psychology's embrace of error and bias is needed and often persuasive. In opting for perceptual realism over social constructivism, however, he seems to ignore a third choice - a cognitive constructivism which has a long and distinguished history in the study of nonsocial perception, and which enables us to understand both accuracy and error.

Cues to Lying May be Deceptive: Speaker and Listener Behaviour in an Interactive Game of Deception

Are the cues that speakers produce when lying the same cues that listeners attend to when attempting to detect deceit? We used a two-person interactive game to explore the production and perception of speech and nonverbal cues to lying. In each game turn, participants viewed pairs of images, with the location of some treasure indicated to the speaker but not to the listener. The speaker described the location of the treasure, with the objective of misleading the listener about its true location; the listener attempted to locate the treasure, based on their judgement of the speaker’s veracity. In line with previous comprehension research, listeners’ responses suggest that they attend primarily to behaviours associated with increased mental difficulty, perhaps because lying, under a cognitive hypothesis, is thought to cause an increased cognitive load. Moreover, a mouse-tracking analysis suggests that these judgements are made quickly, while the speakers’ utterances are still unfolding. However, there is a surprising mismatch between listeners and speakers: When producing false statements, speakers are less likely to produce the cues that listeners associate with lying. This production pattern is in keeping with an attempted control hypothesis, whereby liars may take into account listeners’ expectations and correspondingly manipulate their behaviour to avoid detection.