No abstract

This meta-analysis investigates linguistic cues to deception and whether these cues can be detected with computer programs. We integrated operational definitions for 79 cues from 44 studies where software had been used to identify linguistic deception cues. These cues were allocated to six research questions. As expected, the meta-analyses demonstrated that, relative to truth-tellers, liars experienced greater cognitive load, expressed more negative emotions, distanced themselves more from events, expressed fewer sensory-perceptual words, and referred less often to cognitive processes. However, liars were not more uncertain than truth-tellers. These effects were moderated by event type, involvement, emotional valence, intensity of interaction, motivation, and other moderators. Although the overall effect size was small, theory-driven predictions for certain cues received support. These findings not only further our knowledge about the usefulness of linguistic cues to detect deception with computers in applied settings but also elucidate the relationship between language and deception.

A study was conducted to examine Spanish police officers' and nonofficers' lie-and truth-detection accuracy, as well as their estimated detection ability. The participants were 121 police officers and 146 undergraduates who watched videotaped truthful and deceptive statements. They had to indicate: (1) whether each statement was truthful or deceptive, and (2) how good police officers were, in comparison with the general population, at detecting the truthfulness or deceptiveness of a statement. Results indicate that police officers' accuracy was not higher than that of nonofficers, rather, while the officers reached an accuracy rate close to chance probability, the undergraduates surpassed that probability. Officers had a very strong tendency to judge the statements as deceptive; this made them less accurate than the students in judging the truthful accounts, while both groups reached a similar accuracy when judging the deceptive ones. Both occupational samples considered that the police are more capable of identifying truths and lies than the general population. However, this belief was stronger among the officers themselves than among the nonofficers. No significant correlation between estimated ability and accuracy was found for either sample. The results are explained in terms of the participants' wrong beliefs about the cues to deceit and the socialization process that police officers undergo, which would increase their confidence and perceived ability while hindering their learning of the actual indicators of deceit. The need for officers to receive training is emphasized, and some directions are given on how this training should be carried out. ' L objectif visé par cette étude était d'examiner l'habileté de policiers et de non-policiers espagnols à détecter avec exactitude les déclarations véridiques et fausses, ainsi que leur estimation de leur habileté de détection. Les participants étaient 121 policiers et 146 étudiants universitaires dont la tâ che consistait à visionner un enregistrement vidéo présentant des déclarations véridiques et des fausses. Ils devaient indiquer: (1) si chaque déclaration était vraie ou fausse et (2) la capacité des policiers à détecter la véridicité ou le mensonge dans une déclaration, en comparaison avec la population générale. Les résultats indiquent que l'exactitude des policiers n'était pas plus élevée que celle des non-policiers, même que, tandis que les policiers ont atteint un taux d'exactitude près de celui pouvant être obtenu en fonction du hasard, les étudiants universitaires ont surpassé cette probabilité. D'une part, les policiers ont montré une forte tendance à juger les déclarations comme mensongères; ceci fait en sorte qu'ils sont moins exacts que les étudiants pour juger les déclarations véridiques. D'autre part, les deux groupes ont atteint une exactitude similaire dans le jugement des fausses déclarations. Par ailleurs, les deux groupes ont considéré que les policiers ont une meilleure capacité pour identifier les vérités et les mensonges que la population gé...

Since its introduction into the field of deception detection, the verbal channel has become a rapidly growing area of research. The basic assumption is that liars differ from truth tellers in their verbal behaviour, making it possible to classify them by inspecting their verbal accounts. However, as noted in conferences and in private communication between researchers, the field of verbal lie detection faces several challenges that merit focused attention. The first author therefore proposed a workshop with the mission of promoting solutions for urgent issues in the field. Nine researchers and three practitioners with experience in credibility assessments gathered for 3 days of discussion at Bar‐Ilan University (Israel) in the first international verbal lie detection workshop. The primary session of the workshop took place the morning of the first day. In this session, each of the participants had up to 10 min to deliver a brief message, using just one slide. Researchers were asked to answer the question: ‘In your view, what is the most urgent, unsolved question/issue in verbal lie detection?’ Similarly, practitioners were asked: ‘As a practitioner, what question/issue do you wish verbal lie detection research would address?’ The issues raised served as the basis for the discussions that were held throughout the workshop. The current paper first presents the urgent, unsolved issues raised by the workshop group members in the main session, followed by a message to researchers in the field, designed to deliver the insights, decisions, and conclusions resulting from the discussions.

A current focus in deception research is on developing cognitive-load approaches (CLAs) to detect deception. The aim is to improve lie detection with evidence-based and ecologically valid procedures. Although these approaches show great potential, research on cognitive processes or mechanisms explaining how they operate is lacking. Potential mechanisms underlying the most popular techniques advocated for field application are highlighted. Cognitive scientists are encouraged to conduct basic research that qualifies the ‘cognitive’ in these new approaches.