"It wasn't me, check the cameras!" Suspects' apparent verifiable responses might not indicate innocence.

The verifiability of a suspect's alibi is often interpreted as a sign of innocence. Because the police resources are limited, verifiability could be used to dismiss suspects of minor offenses. We examined whether alibi verifiability actually indicates innocence for minor crimes.

Millennia of legal content criteria of lies and truths: wisdom or common-sense folly?

Long before experimental psychology, religious writers, orators, and playwrights described examples of lie detection based on the verbal content of statements. Legal scholars collected evidence from individual cases and systematized them as "rules of evidence". Some of these resemble content cues used in contemporary research, while others point to working hypotheses worth exploring.

The Number of Senders and Total Judgments Matter More Than Sample Size in Deception-Detection Experiments.

Hundreds of experiments have examined people's ability to distinguish truths from lies. Meta-analyses suggest that the findings from larger scale experiments converge and that findings discrepant from the meta-analytic average of 54% occur in only smaller experiments. Study size (number of data points, or total number of judgments) is a joint function of the sample size and the number of judgments per research participant.

Do people detect deception the way they think they do? Replication and extensions.

Background: Research shows that people believe deception can be detected from behavioral cues despite their past experience of detecting lies from non-behavioral, contextual information (evidence, third-person reports, etc.). However, in previous research, the question about beliefs was necessarily general, while the question about revealing information was always about a specific lie.

Both High Cognitive Load and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Right Inferior Frontal Cortex Make Truth and Lie Responses More Similar.

Deception scholars have argued that increasing the liar's cognitive system artificially can produce deception cues. However, if too much load is imposed, the truth tellers' performance can also be impaired. To address this issue, we designed a veracity task that incorporated a secondary task to increase cognitive load gradually.

Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers.

Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b).

Examining police officers' response bias in judging veracity.

Background: Deception detection research has shown that, in judging veracity, police officers are less truth biased than non-officers. However, previous researchers have normally used videotaped statements where an unknown (but presumably large) number of stereotypical or real deception cues are displayed by the senders. We examined non-officers, novice officers, and experienced officers’ response tendencies in a more controlled situation where cue availability was severely restricted.

Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content analysis.

This meta-analysis synthesizes research on interrater reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA). CBCA is an important component of Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), a forensic procedure used in many countries to evaluate whether statements (e.g.

Deception detection: State of the art and future prospects.

Background: Deception detection has been a longstanding concern throughout human history. It has also interested scientists, who have explored psychological and behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers, as well as ways to improve detection accuracy.

Method: In recent years, substantial advances have been made in the field.

Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews.

Previous deception research on repeated interviews found that liars are not less consistent than truth tellers, presumably because liars use a "repeat strategy" to be consistent across interviews. The goal of this study was to design an interview procedure to overcome this strategy. Innocent participants (truth tellers) and guilty participants (liars) had to convince an interviewer that they had performed several innocent activities rather than committing a mock crime.

An empirical test of the decision to lie component of the Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT).

Meta-analyses reveal that behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers are small. To facilitate lie detection, researchers are currently developing interviewing approaches to increase these differences. Some of these approaches assume that lying is cognitively more difficult than truth telling; however, they are not based on specific cognitive theories of lie production, which are rare.

Experienced and novice officers' generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments.

Deception detection research has shown that police officers are less truth-biased and make their veracity judgments with greater confidence than do nonofficers. Here we examined nonofficers, novice officers, and experienced officers' response bias, confidence, and generalized communicative suspicion. In Experiment 1, novice officers aligned with nonofficers in terms of both generalized communicative suspicion scores and confidence, with both these groups scoring lower than experienced officers.

The source of the truth bias: Heuristic processing?

People believe others are telling the truth more often than they actually are; this is called the truth bias. Surprisingly, when a speaker is judged at multiple points across their statement the truth bias declines. Previous claims argue this is evidence of a shift from (biased) heuristic processing to (reasoned) analytical processing.

Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception.

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.

Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms.

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.

Guidance to detect deception with the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales: are verbal content cues useful to detect false accusations?

In 2 studies we evaluated the efficiency of training raters with a short version of the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales (ARJS-STV-S) in assessing the truthfulness of transcribed accounts. Participants told both truthful and deceptive accounts of either illegal or immoral actions. In the truthful accounts, the participants described their own misdeeds honestly (true confessions).

Deception detection from written accounts.

Most research into deception detection in written accounts has been conducted on transcripts instead of written messages, and has focused on identifying valid verbal deception correlates instead of also examining untrained readers' spontaneous lie-detection attempts (accuracy rates, the cues they use, and so on). Also, the question of whether good liars are also good detectors has not been examined using written accounts. In Study 1, 78 participants handwrote a story and then judged the veracity of another participant's story.

Regression toward the mean or heuristic processing in detecting deception? Reply to Elaad (2010).

Masip, et al. (2009) conducted a study in which observers had to make truth-lie judgments at the beginning, middle, or end of a series of videotaped statements. They found a decline in truth judgments over time and explained this finding in terms of information processing mode.

Exploration of fairness in health services: a qualitative analysis.

A content analysis of fair and unfair experiences described by students as customers of health care services was made. The way customers had been treated by the staff during the implementation of procedures, along with the information exchange between client and service providers turned out to have a strong impact on justice perception. An outstanding point is the reciprocity on the treatment.

Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias.

Research on nonverbal detection of deception has normally been conducted by asking observers to judge the veracity of a number of videotaped communications. These video clips have typically been very short. Observers have a tendency to judge most of these statements as truthful.

Facial appearance and judgments of credibility: the effects of facial babyishness and age on statement credibility.

Researchers have found that facial appearance influences social judgments. For example, evidence has shown that facial babyishness and age affect perceivers' impressions of the stimulus person's veracity. In this experiment, the researchers examined whether these variables also influenced the credibility attributed to written statements purportedly made by these people in addition to several topics of interest in deception-detection research.