The aim of the present experiment was to examine to what extent participants experience attempted control, cognitive load and arousal when they lie and tell the truth under lowerstakes and higher-stakes conditions. We expected both differences and similarities between truth tellers and liars. We expected that participants would experience these processes to a higher degree when they lied compared to when they told the truth (differences), but we also expected that both liars and truth tellers would be keen to make a convincing impression; and that raising the stakes would affect liars and truth tellers in a similar way (similarities). A total of 128 participants lied and told the truth during an interview (lying and truth telling was counterbalanced

Practitioners frequently inform us that variable 'total details' is not suitable for lie detection purposes in real life interviews. Practitioners cannot count the number of details in real time and the threshold of details required to classify someone as a truth teller or a lie teller is unknown. The authors started to address these issues by examining three new verbal veracity cues: complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies. We present a meta-analysis regarding these three variables and compared the results with 'total details'. Truth tellers reported more details (d = 0.28 to d = 0.45) and more complications (d = 0.51 to d = 0.62) and fewer common knowledge details (d = -0.40 to d = -0.46) and self-handicapping strategies (d = -0.37 to d = -0.50) than lie tellers. Complications was the best diagnostic veracity cue. The findings were similar for the initial free recall and the second recall in which only new information was examined. Four moderators (scenario, motivation, modality, and interview technique) did not affect the results. As a conclusion, complications in particular appear to be a good veracity indicator but more research is required. We included suggestions for such research. La relación de las complicaciones, los detalles de observación común y las estrategias de autojustificación con la veracidad: un meta-análisis R E S U M E NLos profesionales dicen con frecuencia que la variable "detalles totales" es adecuada para la detección de mentiras en las entrevistas de la vida real. No pueden contar el número de detalles en tiempo real y se desconoce el umbral de detalles necesario para clasificar a alguien como sincero o mentiroso. Los autores comenzaron a abordar estos temas analizando tres nuevos indicadores verbales de veracidad: las complicaciones, los detalles de conocimiento público y las estrategias de falta de capacidad. Se presenta un meta-análisis de estas tres variables y se comparan los resultados con los "detalles totales". Los sujetos que dicen la verdad dan más detalles (d = 0.28 hasta d = 0.45) y complicaciones (d = 0.51 hasta d = 0.62) y menos detalles de conocimiento público (d = -0.40 hasta d = -0.46) y estrategias de justificación (d = -0.37 hasta d = -0.50) que los que mienten. Las complicaciones resultaron ser el mejor indicador diagnóstico de veracidad. Los resultados fueron iguales en la primera entrevista en recuerdo libre y en la segunda entrevista, en la que solo se analizaba información nueva. No influyeron en los resultados cuatro moderadores: el escenario, la motivación, la modalidad y la técnica de entrevista. Como conclusión, las complicaciones parecen ser un buen indicador de veracidad aunque es necesaria más investigación. Se discuten las futuras líneas de investigación.

No abstract

The present experiment investigates similarities in participants' nonverbal and verbal behaviours when responding to baseline and investigative questions, comparing two different types of baselines. Police literature suggests to obtain a baseline through small talk, whereas academic literature underlines the importance of baseline and investigative themes to be comparable. First, a baseline was obtained (either small talk or comparable), then the investigative questioning started. During the investigative questioning, participants either truthfully reported a set of actions they had actually performed or lied about them. Findings revealed that truth tellers and liars in the small talk condition did not differ in their level of similarity when responding to the baseline and investigative questions. In the comparable truth condition, levels of verbal similarity between the baseline and investigative questions were higher for truth tellers than for liars, but only for one variable: spatial detail. Results therefore showed that a small talk baseline should not be used to assess interviewees' credibility, and that a comparable truth baseline, although better than a small talk baseline, is still problematic.

The Verifiability Approach (VA) is a verbal veracity tool that assumes that truth tellers provide more details that can be verified and obtain a higher ratio of such details (verifiable details/total details) than liars. A VA meta-analysis was conducted. Results showed that truth tellers reported more Verifiable Details than liars (k = 20, N = 1532, g = 0.42). The effect was moderated by the presence of the Information Protocol and by the nature of the statement (event-related or not). Truth tellers reported a higher ratio of Verifiable Details than liars (k = 18, N = 1359, g = 0.49). The effect was moderated by the medium through which the statement was provided. Unverifiable details did not discriminate truth tellers from liars (k = 15, N = 957, g = -0.25). In conclusion, results showed good potential for the use the VA, although replications and field studies are needed.