Background. Lying through omitting information has been neglected in verbal lie detection research. The task is challenging: Can we decipher from the truthful information a lie teller provides that s/he is hiding something? We expected this to be the case because of lie tellers' inclination to keep their stories simple. We predicted lie tellers to provide fewer details and fewer complications than truth tellers, the latter particularly after exposure to a Model Statement.Method. A total of 44 truth tellers and 41 lie tellers were interviewed about a conversation (debriefing interview) they had taken part in earlier. Lie tellers were asked not to discuss one aspect of that debriefing interview.Results. Results showed that truth tellers reported more complications than lie tellers after exposure to a Model Statement. Conclusion.Ideas about future research in lying through omissions are discussed.

In everyday life, we often need to attentively track moving objects. A previous study has claimed that this tracking occurs independently in the left and right visual hemifields (Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2005, Psychological Science,16, 637–647). Specifically, it was shown that observers were much more accurate at tracking objects that were spread over both visual hemifields as opposed to when all were confined to a single visual hemifield. In that study, observers were not required to remember the identities of the objects. Conversely, in real life, there is seldom any benefit to tracking an object unless you can also recall its identity. It has been predicted that when observers are required to remember the identities of the tracked objects a bilateral advantage should no longer be observed (Oksama & Hyönä, 2008, Cognitive Psychology, 56, 237–283). We tested this prediction and found that a bilateral advantage still occurred, though it was not as strong as when observers were not required to remember the identities of the targets. Even in the later case we found that tracking was not completely independent in the two visual hemifields. We present a combined model of multiple object tracking and multiple identity tracking that can explain our data.

The research Ethics committee of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology (ELTE) granted a central permission (permission nr: 2019/47). Many other labs obtained IRB approval too, which approvals can be found here: https://osf.io/j6kte/ . Participants had to give informed consent before starting the experiment. Only participants recruited through Mturk or Prolific received monetary compensation.Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.

Word count: 200Research indicates that truthful statements typically contain more details than fabricated statements, and that truth tellers are no more consistent than liars over multiple interviews. In this experiment, we examine the impact of (i) multiple interviewers and (ii) reverse order recall on liars' and truth tellers' consistency and amount of reported detail over repeated recall attempts. Participants either took part in a mock crime (lying condition) or an innocent event (truth telling condition) which they were subsequently interviewed about in two separate interview phases. Truth tellers provided more details overall, and more reminiscent details than liars. There were no differences between veracity groups for the number of omissions made or repetitions reported. Despite the popular belief that inconsistency is a cue to deception, we found little support for the notion that consistency (or lack of consistency) offers a diagnostic cue to deception. We found little evidence that switching interviewer or recalling in reverse order induced inconsistencies in liars. In fact, due to the number of reminiscent details in truth tellers' accounts, our findings suggest that accounts provided by liars tend to be slightly more consistent than those provided by truth tellers. The materials for this paper can be found at osf.io/hgvmk/. Keywords (5): consistency, detecting deception, investigative interviewing, lying, reverse order recall DECEPTION AND CONSISTENCY OVER REPEATED INTERVIEWS 3The devil is in the detail: Deception and consistency over repeated interviews.Research has consistently shown that people are relatively poor at recognising when someone is lying (Hartwig et al., 2011; ten Brinke, Vohs, & Carney, 2016). Meta-analyses reveal that humans' ability to detect deception rarely exceeds chance (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), and that there is little difference in accuracy between laypeople and practitioners who work in fields where attempts to deceive are commonplace (Aamodt & Custer 2006;Bond & DePaulo, 2006). Even when investigators are trained to look for cues to deception, only a small to medium training effect for accuracy in distinguishing between truth tellers and liars is found with the largest effect sizes found for training that focuses on verbal content (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2016). Given people's poor ability to differentiate between truth tellers and liars, researchers have been working towards developing interviewing techniques designed to increase the differences in verbal cues between truth tellers and liars (e.g. Strategic Use of Evidence,

Summary Research has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self‐report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self‐report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self‐report what influences their decision‐making. Using a within‐subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues. Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between‐subject consistency in the same way. A lens model showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.