scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The authors argue that there is little need for more of the traditional deception detection research in which observers assess short video clips in which there are few (if any) cues to deception and truth.
Abstract
In this paper we argue that there is little need for more of the traditional deception detection research in which observers assess short video clips in which there are few (if any) cues to deception and truth. We argue that a change in direction is needed and that researchers should focus on the questions the interviewer needs to ask in order to elicit and enhance cues to deception. We discuss three strands of research into this new ‘interviewing to detect deception’ approach. We encourage practitioners to use the proposed techniques and encourage other researchers to join us in conducting more research in this area. We offer some guidelines for what researchers need to keep in mind when carrying out research in this new paradigm.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis

TL;DR: In this article, a meta-analysis of a new cognitive approach to (non-)verbal lie detection is presented, which consists of three techniques: imposing cognitive load, encouraging interviewees to say more, and asking unexpected questions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Are Computers Effective Lie Detectors? A Meta-Analysis of Linguistic Cues to Deception

TL;DR: 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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

TL;DR: A meta-analysis of 114 studies using computerized RT paradigms to assess the cognitive cost of lying revealed a large standardized RT difference, even after correction for publication bias, with a large heterogeneity amongst effect sizes.
Journal ArticleDOI

Information Manipulation Theory 2: A Propositional Theory of Deceptive Discourse Production

TL;DR: Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2) as discussed by the authors is a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production that conceptually frames deception as involving the covert manipulation of information along mul...
Journal ArticleDOI

Exploiting liars' verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details

TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the hypothesis that liars will report their activities strategically and will, if possible, avoid mentioning details that can be verified by the investigator, and they compared their verifiability approach with other theoretical approaches as to why differences in detail between truth tellers and liars emerge.
References
More filters
Book

Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences

TL;DR: The concepts of power analysis are discussed in this paper, where Chi-square Tests for Goodness of Fit and Contingency Tables, t-Test for Means, and Sign Test are used.
Journal ArticleDOI

A power primer.

TL;DR: A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is providedHere the sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests.
Journal ArticleDOI

Cues to deception

TL;DR: Results show that in some ways, liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers, and they tell less compelling tales, and their stories include fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents.
Journal ArticleDOI

Accuracy of Deception Judgments

TL;DR: It is proposed that people judge others' deceptions more harshly than their own and that this double standard in evaluating deceit can explain much of the accumulated literature.
Journal ArticleDOI

Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.

TL;DR: This work outlines why AUC is the preferred measure of predictive or diagnostic accuracy in forensic psychology or psychiatry, and urges researchers and practitioners to use numbers rather than verbal labels to characterize effect sizes.
Related Papers (5)