A re‐analysis that supports our main results: A reply to Levine et al.

Levine et al. (2018) criticized our meta‐analysis, but their conclusion was the same as ours: The cognitive approach to lie detection results in a modest improvement. We address and dismiss Levine et al.'s (2018) three criticisms. Regarding the ‘confound’, in our meta‐analysis we averaged the results of two cells on statistical grounds, which does not constitute a confound in statistical terms. Regarding ‘aberrant controls’, that depends entirely on the benchmarks selected and type of statistical test and meta‐analysis used. Regarding ‘unreliable data’, the claim that there is a positive relationship between ‘unreliable’ data and total accuracy in the cognitive lie detection conditions is not even supported by their own data (p = .16). We conclude with a request to Levine et al. to focus on our shared aim: to develop interview protocols that enable lie detection.     

True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future

This study is on how to discriminate between true and false intentions, an emerging area within psycholegal research. We argue that asking about the past (the planning phase) might be a promising way to detect lies about the future (intentions). That is, participants who had developed false intentions to mask their criminal intentions were assumed to provide equally long and detailed answers to questions about intentions, compared to participants who told the truth about their intentions. In contrast, we predicted that lying participants would be worse at answering questions about the planning of their stated (false) intentions, compared to participants telling the truth about the planning of their stated (true) intentions. To test our assumptions, we used a newly devised experimental set-up accommodating the main characteristics of intent. Both lying and truth-telling suspects perceived the questions on planning as more unanticipated, and more difficult to answer, compared to the questions about their intentions (future actions). Furthermore, in support of our predictions we found that the truth-telling (vs. lying) suspects' answers to questions on planning were longer and perceived as more detailed and clear, whereas liars' and truth-tellers' answers to questions on intentions were equally long and perceived as equally detailed.     

Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit

Pairs of liars and pairs of truth tellers were interviewed and the amount of eye contact they made with the interviewer and each other was coded. Given that liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, we expected liars to monitor the interviewer to see whether they were being believed, and to try harder to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth. It was hypothesised that this monitoring would manifest itself through more eye contact with the interviewer and less eye contact with each other than in the case of truth tellers. A total of 43 pairs of participants took part in the experiment. Truth tellers had lunch in a nearby restaurant. Liars took some money from a purse, and were asked to pretend that instead of taking the money, they had been to a nearby restaurant together for lunch. Pairs of liars looked less at each other and displayed more eye contact with the interviewer than pairs of truth tellers. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the crime scenario

In the current study we examined the effect of having the opportunity to plan an alibi in advance on the suitability of the verifiability approach in two crime scenarios that differed in their opportunity to carry out innocent activities at the time of the crime. One hundred and two participants imagined being involved in stealing money either from a café at a time when it was open (allows innocent activities) or from a bank at a time when it was closed (does not allow innocent activities). We asked participants about their strategies and difficulties in preparing a verifiable alibi in advance, and to write down their prepared alibis. The participants in both groups found this task difficult and did not differ in the difficulties they experienced, however they differed in their strategies (plans to include true witnesses) and actual success in the task. Participants in the Café scenario provided 30% more verifiable details than the participants in the Bank scenario. Strategies and difficulties mentioned by the participants are presented in the paper, and the implications of the study's results on the application of the verifiability approach are discussed.