A “weapon focus” effect in children

In this paper we examined beliefs about deception held by legal professionals. Three groups of presumed expert lie-catchers were investigated: police officers ( n =104), prosecutors ( n =158), and judges ( n =251). The experts' beliefs about deception were remarkably inconsistent with the general pattern resulting from studies mapping actual cues to deception. For example, a majority of police officers believed there is a strong relationship between (a) deceptive behaviour and gaze aversion and (b) deceptive behaviour and an increase in body movements. The scientific literature does not support this view. Furthermore, all three professional groups believed that truthful consecutive statements are more consistent than deceptive, and that it is easier to detect deception in interactive than non-interactive contexts. Research on deception shows the opposite. For five of the seven investigated items we found significant between-group differences. Both the genesis and the implications of these differences are discussed. Judging from self-ratings, the presumed experts admitted knowing close to nothing about scientific research on deception.     

The Accuracy of Auditors' and Layered Voice Analysis (LVA) Operators' Judgments of Truth and Deception During Police Questioning*

The purpose of this study was to determine if auditors could identify truthful and deceptive persons in a sample (n = 74) of audio recordings used to assess the effectiveness of layered voice analysis (LVA). The LVA employs an automated algorithm to detect deception, but it was not effective here. There were 31 truthful and 43 deceptive persons in the sample and two LVA operators averaged 48% correct decisions on truth‐tellers and 25% on deceivers. Subsequent to the LVA analysis the recordings were audited by three interviewers, each independently rendering a decision of truthful or deceptive and indicating their confidence. Auditors' judgments averaged 68% correct decisions on truth‐tellers and 71% on deceivers. Auditors' detection rates, generally, exceeded chance and there was significantly (p < 0.05) greater confidence on correct than incorrect judgments of deceivers but not on truth‐tellers. These results suggest that the success reported for LVA analysis may be due to operator's judgment.     

Using Named Entities for Computer‐Automated Verbal Deception Detection

There is an increasing demand for automated verbal deception detection systems. We propose named entity recognition (NER; i.e., the automatic identification and extraction of information from text) to model three established theoretical principles: (i) truth tellers provide accounts that are richer in detail, (ii) contain more contextual references (specific persons, locations, and times), and (iii) deceivers tend to withhold potentially checkable information. We test whether NER captures these theoretical concepts and can automatically identify truthful versus deceptive hotel reviews. We extracted the proportion of named entities with two NER tools (spaCy and Stanford's NER) and compared the discriminative ability to a lexicon word count approach (LIWC) and a measure of sentence specificity (speciteller). Named entities discriminated truthful from deceptive hotel reviews above chance level, and outperformed the lexicon approach and sentence specificity. This investigation suggests that named entities may be a useful addition to existing automated verbal deception detection approaches.     

To Behave Like a Liar: Nonverbal Cues to Deception in an Asian Sample

The detection of deception is an essential yet challenging component of investigative interviewing. Behavioural cues to deception in particular, have long been used in investigative interviewing contexts to determine decisions of suspect veracity and deceit. Nevertheless, deception research amongst non-American or European populations has yet to fully explore the effectiveness of such non-verbal observations. This study may be the first to examine truth-lie behaviours involving South-East Asian participants. In this study conducted in Singapore, 68 participants completed either a mock criminal task or a non-criminal task, before encountering an investigative interviewing scenario in which they had to lie or tell the truth to the interviewer. The results showed that liars displayed significantly more head movements and less hand/finger movements, as well as reported more feelings of guilt, than truth-tellers. Implications for investigator training and criminal investigative procedures are discussed.     

Cold-blooded women can detect lies with greater accuracy than other women

Lies are notoriously difficult to detect. But it appears that some people are better at accomplishing this task than others even though the factors contributing to deception detection accuracy are not well understood. This study explored the influence of empathy on the detection of deception as a function of the detectors’ gender while dark personality traits were statistically controlled. Eighty men and 80 women were requested to judge whether individuals viewed in videos were giving their true opinion or not on current debatable issues (50% truthful and 50% deceptive narratives). Judges were divided into four groups according to their gender and their degree of empathy, as assessed using the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy. It was found that women with lower levels of empathy distinguished false from true opinions better than women with higher empathy, whereas no such difference was found in men. These results suggest that the degree of empathy in women influences their ability to detect deception and supports recent studies showing that emotional skills negatively affect deception detection ability. We suggest that less empathic women are less affected by emotional contagion and thus may be more able to focus on non-emotional cues that might reveal deception.     

Interviewing to Detect Deception: When to Disclose the Evidence?

Research shows that there are few objective cues to deception. However, it may be possible to create such cues by strategic interviewing techniques. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is one such technique. The basic premise of the SUE technique is that liars and truth tellers employ different counter-interrogation strategies, and that the evidence against the suspect can be used to exploit these differences in strategies. This study examined the effect of the timing of evidence disclosure (early vs. late vs. gradual) on verbal cues to deception. We predicted that late disclosure would be most effective in differentiating between liars and truth-tellers, and that cues to deception in the gradual disclosure condition would progressively disappear due to the suspects’ realization that evidence against them exists. That is, we expected that liars in the gradual presentation condition would become more consistent with the evidence over time. A sample of 86 undergraduate students went through a mock-terrorism paradigm (half innocent, half guilty), and were subsequently interviewed using one of three disclosure strategies: early, gradual, and late disclosure. We measured statement-evidence inconsistencies as cues to deception . Results supported our predictions in that cues to deception were most pronounced in the late disclosure condition. Contrary to our expectations, the results suggested that presenting the evidence gradually may put innocent suspects at a higher risk of misclassification as they seem to adopt a strategy that is more similar to guilty suspects.     

Deception among pairs: “Let's say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!”

Deception research has neglected the fact that legal-workers often have to try to detect deceit on the basis of statements derived from pairs of suspects, each having been interrogated repeatedly. To remedy this shortcoming we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth-telling pairs and 10 lying pairs was interrogated twice about an alibi. One hundred and twenty undergraduate students were enrolled as lie-catchers. The main findings were that (a) overall deception detection accuracy was modest; (b) lie-catchers given access to a large number of statements did not outperform lie-catchers given access to a lesser number of statements; (c) when asked to justify their veracity assessments the most frequently reported cue was ‘consistency within pairs of suspects’; (d) all cues to deception were of low diagnostic value. Psycho-legal aspects of integrating sequential information in deception detection contexts are discussed.     

Police officers', social workers', teachers' and the general public's beliefs about deception in children,adolescents and adults

Purpose . The present survey examined the beliefs of different occupational groups (police officers, social workers, teachers) and members of the general public about (i) cues to deception in young children (5‐ to 6‐year‐olds), adolescents (14‐ to 15‐year‐olds) and adults, and (ii) the underlying processes (emotions, cognitive load and attempted verbal and behavioural control), which may explain why cues to deceit do occur. Method . Two hundred and six participants completed a ‘cues to deception’ and ‘processes underlying deception’ questionnaire for three different age groups (young children, adolescents and adults). Results and discussion . The survey revealed that participants believed that liars are nervous, have difficulties in formulating their lies and do not fully endorse their lies. In general, participants associated more cues with deception than seems justified on the basis of deception literature. Participants generally associated the same cues to deceit for all three age groups but, when differences between age groups did emerge, this was most likely to be amongst teachers. Although participants believed that adults control their speech and behaviour more when they lie than adolescents and young children do, this did not result in participants believing that adults exhibit fewer cues to deceit. No major occupational differences emerged, although out of the four participating groups, teachers were most likely to associate cues with deception in young children.     

Lie Detection Accuracy—the Role of Age and the Use of Emotions as a Reliable Cue

Literature surrounding the accuracy of deception detection has produced inconsistent findings, and the majority of investigations have been based upon low-stakes lies. Although recent research has suggested that high-stakes situations may produce reliable cues to deception, it remains unclear whether knowledge of these cues actually improves the detection of lies. In an online experiment, we assessed participant’s ability to detect lies in 22 public appeals for help with missing or murdered relatives (N = 196). Participants were randomly allocated to either the cue condition (presented with previously identified cues to deception) or no cue condition (instructed to make judgement on instinct), before being presented with the video footage. Participants were asked to indicate whether the appealer is lying or telling the truth, how confident they are in their judgement and if they were familiar with the case. At the end of the experiment, participants wrote qualitative responses on the cues that they used during lie detection. Although cue knowledge and confidence did not significantly predict accuracy scores, there was a positive relationship between accuracy and age. Participants who used emotion-based cues were significantly better at detecting deception. The findings are discussed with reference to the existence of reliable cues.     

US police officers’ knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training

Abstract

The current study surveyed a random sample of Texas law enforcement officers (n?=?109) about their knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception. The officers were not highly knowledgeable about this topic, overall performing at a chance level in assessing how various behavioral cues relate to deception. Confidence in one's skill was unrelated to accuracy, and officers who reported receiving the most training and utilizing these skills more often were more confident but no more accurate in their knowledge of the behaviors that typically betray deception. The authors compare these results to previous studies that have examined officers’ beliefs in other countries and discuss the implication of these results in terms of developing future training programs that may debunk the common misconceptions that officers possess.     

Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about deception

Purpose. This paper is a survey examining beliefs about cues to deception held by prison inmates, prison personnel and students. In line with the ideas about more beneficial learning structures in the environment of criminals and findings from previous studies, we predicted that the beliefs held by prison inmates would be most consistent with the general pattern found in studies examining objective cues to deception. Method. A total of 326 participants filled out a questionnaire containing questions about cues to deception. The sample consisted of 107 prison inmates from high‐security prisons, 103 prison personnel and 116 students. Both between‐group and within‐group analyses were conducted. Results. In line with previous surveys, students and prison personnel held stereotypical and wrongful beliefs about cues to deception. Prison inmates' beliefs about deception were less stereotypical than the beliefs of prison personnel and students. Conclusions. The results indicate that prison inmates have relatively more insight into the psychology of deception. A reasonable explanation for these findings is that the environment of criminals is beneficial in the sense that they receive more adequate outcome feedback than the other two groups. The results indicate that studying this group may generate useful knowledge about the dynamics of deception.     

Believed cues to deception: Judgments in self‐generated trivial and serious situations

Purpose . To investigate the beliefs that people hold about the cues to deception in serious and trivial lies. Method . A questionnaire study considered the beliefs which people have about the cues to deception in themselves and other people in both trivial and serious lies. Participants were asked to consider how likely it was that a number of verbal and non‐verbal behaviours would give themselves or someone else away during deception. Half the participants considered cues to deception in themselves and the remainder considered cues in other people. All participants were asked to make a judgment on cues to deception in both trivial and serious situations. Results . It was predicted that making the consequences of the lie both salient and meaningful to participants would make participants less stereotypical in their beliefs. Results partially supported these hypotheses – serious lies were associated with more nervous behaviours than trivial ones and a total of six behaviours were regarded as occurring significantly less often in trivial lies than in truthful situations. Conclusions . While similar results were found for serious self‐generated lies to those found in previous research using vignettes, there was some suggestion that the use of a more individually salient lying situation did reduce the reliance on stereotyped behaviour. The believed decrease in certain behaviours during trivial lies is a promising result, and these results are discussed with reference to the roles that stereotypes and heuristics play in ineffective lie detection.     

Clusters of Nonverbal Behaviors Differ According to Type of Question and Veracity in Investigative Interviews in a Mock Crime Context

Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception is a capstone skill of criminal justice professionals, and researchers have long examined nonverbal cues to aid in such determinations. This paper examines the notion that testing clusters of nonverbal behaviors is a more fruitful way of making such determinations than single, specific behaviors. Participants from four ethnic groups participated in a mock crime and either told the truth or lied in an investigative interview. Fourteen nonverbal behaviors of the interviewees were coded from the interviews; differences in the behaviors were tested according to type of question and veracity condition. Different types of questions produced different nonverbal reactions. Clusters of nonverbal behaviors differentiated truth tellers from liars, and the specific clusters were moderated by question. Accuracy rates ranged from 62.6 to 72.5% and were above deception detection accuracy rates for humans and random data. These findings have implications for practitioners as well as future research and theory.     

Cold‐blooded lie catchers? An investigation of psychopathy,emotional processing,and deception detection

Purpose. The process of catching liars is challenging, though evidence suggests that deception detection abilities are influenced by the characteristics of the judge. This study examined individual differences in emotional processing and levels of psychopathic traits on the ability to judge the veracity of written narratives varying in emotional valence. Methods. Undergraduate participants (N= 251) judged the veracity of 12 written narratives (truthful/deceptive) across three emotional categories: positive, negative, and neutral events. Levels of psychopathy were assessed to investigate its relation to accuracy and cue use. Results. Overall accuracy was close to chance, although participants were more accurate in determining the veracity of truthful relative to deceptive narratives. Accuracy was impaired for emotional (positive and negative) relative to neutral narratives. Psychopathy was not associated with levels of overall accuracy, but related to discriminative ability, and differential use of cues in decision making. Reported cue use also differed across emotional narrative conditions. Conclusions. We speculated that an emotive truth bias may have detracted judges from attending to valid cues that are indicative of the deceptive nature of stimuli because they were distracted by the emotional content of the report. Implications for deception detection in forensic settings are discussed.     

Deception Traits in Psychological Interviewing

Deception researchers have attempted to improve people’s ability to detect deceit by teaching them which cues to pay attention to. Such training only yields limited success because, we argue, the nonverbal and verbal cues that liars spontaneously display are faint and unreliable. In recent years, the emphasis has radically changed and the current focus is on developing interview techniques that elicit and enhance cues to deception. We give an overview of this innovative research. We also consider to what extent current deception research can be used to fight terrorism. We argue that researchers should pay particular attention to settings that are neglected so far but relevant for terrorism, such as (i) lying about intentions, (ii) examining people when they are secretly observed and (iii) interviewing suspects together. We will commence this paper with general information that puts our reasoning into context. That is, we turn briefly to physiological and neurological lie detection methods that are often discussed in the media, then to the theoretical underpinnings of nonverbal and verbal cues to deceit, and the research methods typically used in nonverbal and verbal lie detection research.     

Behavioral Cues to Deception vs. Topic Incriminating Potential in Criminal Confessions

Coding statements of criminal suspects facilitated tests of four hypotheses about differences between behavioral cues to deception and the incriminating potential (IP) of the topic. Information from criminal investigations corroborated the veracity of 337 brief utterances from 28 videotaped confessions. A four-point rating of topic IP measured the degree of potential threat per utterance. Cues discriminating true vs. false comprised word/phrase repeats, speech disfluency spikes, nonverbal overdone, and protracted headshaking. Non-lexical sounds discriminated true vs. false inthe reverse direction. Cues that distinguished IP only comprised speech speed, gesticulation amount, nonverbal animation level, soft weak vocal and “I (or we) just” qualifier. Adding “I don't know” to an answer discriminated both IP and true vs. false. The results supported hypothesis about differentiating deception cues from incriminating potential cues in high-stakes interviews, and suggested that extensive research on distinctions between stress-related cues and cues to deception would improve deception detection.     

Detecting deception in suspects: verbal cues as a function of interview strategy

Research on deception has consistently shown that people are poor at detecting deception, partly due to lack of consistent cues to deception. This research focuses on eliciting verbal cues to deception when questioning suspects who deny crime and how such cues differ due to type of questioning. An experiment examined verbal differences between innocent and guilty mock suspects (N=96) as a function of veracity and interview style (Free recall, Probes, or Free recall plus Probes). Guilty (vs innocent) suspects omitted more crime-relevant information and their statements were more likely to contradict the evidence, showing that statement–evidence inconsistency was a cue to deception. This cue to deception was more pronounced when the interview contained probes. Lie-catchers (N=192) obtained an accuracy rate higher than chance (61.5%) for detecting deceptive denials. Implications for further research on verbal cues to deception are discussed.     

Deception Detection Expertise

A lively debate between Bond and Uysal (2007, Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109-115) and O'Sullivan (2007, Law and Human Behavior, 31, 117-123) concerns whether there are experts in deception detection. Two experiments sought to (a) identify expert(s) in detection and assess them twice with four tests, and (b) study their detection behavior using eye tracking. Paroled felons produced videotaped statements that were presented to students and law enforcement personnel. Two experts were identified, both female Native American BIA correctional officers. Experts were over 80% accurate in the first assessment, and scored at 90% accuracy in the second assessment. In Signal Detection analyses, experts showed high discrimination, and did not evidence biased responding. They exploited nonverbal cues to make fast, accurate decisions. These highly-accurate individuals can be characterized as experts in deception detection.     

Parents’ and non-parents’ beliefs about the cues to deception in children

Previous research has suggested that certain groups of experts are better at detecting deception than others. A possible explanation for this finding is that some expert groups have different beliefs about the cues to deception. This study investigated these beliefs in one such expert group, namely parents. Four different scenarios were presented, each scenario depicting a deception for a child at a different age. For each one, participants were asked to indicate whether behaviours would occur more or less frequently during deception. Some differences were found between parents and non-parents for overall beliefs, however there were few differences in their awareness of situational variations, with all participants being aware that deceptive behaviour could change across situations. Results are discussed in terms of the relationship between beliefs and expertise as well as the importance of direct versus indirect experience in the formation of beliefs about the cues to deception.     

Psychopathy and deception detection using indirect measures

Purpose. The goal of the current study was to examine psychopathy and indirect measures of deception detection. Methods. Undergraduate students (N=444) viewed video clips of adult male offenders telling true and false stories about crimes. For each story, participants rated indirect measures of deception (thinking hard, nervousness, emotional arousal, and attempting to control behaviour) and credibility. Participants also chose the story they believed to be true and rated the confidence in their decision. Offenders were rated on the psychopathy checklist – revised. Results. Consistent with past research, deception detection accuracy was at chance level and unrelated to confidence. Ratings on indirect measures by undergraduates did not distinguish true and false statements in offenders. Psychopathic offenders were less successful at deception than non‐psychopathic offenders. Psychopathic traits were associated with lower perceived credibility during deception and ratings of thinking harder while lying. Conclusions. The results suggest that indirect measures of deception detection may be less useful in offender samples. Further, the findings are consistent with the general inability of psychopathic offenders to demonstrate superior deception skills in empirical studies. Indirect measures of deception uniquely related to psychopathic traits offer new insight into the relationship between psychopathy and deception.