Search

The White Paper suggests important reforms that will reduce the likelihood of false confessions resulting from police interrogation. The research underlying these suggested reforms has yielded significant advances in our understanding of factors associated with false confessions. As we move forward, we encourage the development of empirically based approaches that provide a viable alternative to current practice. In doing so, we suggest that researchers pursue a positive psychological approach that involves partnering with practitioners to systematically develop interrogative methods that are shown to be more diagnostic. By taking such an approach, we believe that the recommendations offered in the current White Paper can be supplemented by methods that carry the support of both scientific and law enforcement communities.

Robust evidence on deception detection highlights that humans perform at chance level, especially when a truth-default cognitive threshold is crossed by the deceiver. This systematic review examined whether identification of deceptive stimuli elicits specific physiological responses in the detectors of deception. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, five databases were searched for human studies that evaluate physiological reactivity to deceptive stimuli, along with behavioural responses. Eleven studies (thirteen experiments) were included in a qualitative synthesis. Results show that deception detection is associated with higher activity in the prefrontal cortex and temporal lobe, with a specific involvement of the temporoparietal junction, alongside the cerebellum and cingulate cortex. Specific changes in other physiological activities (i.e., heart rate, skin temperature, motor excitability) also seem to be differently associated with the detection of deception. This review suggests that detecting deception should be considered a complex decision-making process and indicates that specific physiological activity is present across different types of deceptive stimuli. Implications are promising for further developments in security and forensic sciences.

People tend to be bad at detecting lies: When explicitly asked to infer whether others tell a lie or the truth, people often do not perform better than chance. However, increasing evidence suggests that implicit lie detection measures and potentially physiological measures may mirror observers' telling apart lies from truths after all. Implicit and physiological responses are argued to respond to lies as a threatening stimulus associated with a threat response. Subsequently, people who tell a lie should thus be liked and trusted less than those who tell the truth (indirect lie detection measures). In terms of physiology, a threat response should be associated with narrowing blood vessels (vasoconstriction), which should reduce peripheral skin blood flow. Consequently, we expected lower finger temperatures when confronted with a lie compared to the truth. We test lie detection using explicit and indirect measures, as well as using infrared thermal imaging as a physiological measure of lie detection. Participants (N = 95) observed videos of people telling lies or the truth about their social relationships, during which participants' fingertip temperature was recorded. Results suggested that the accuracy of explicit categorizations remained at chance level. Judgments of story-tellers' likability and trustworthiness (indirect measures of lie detection) showed no evidence that observers could tell apart liars and truthtellers: Those believed to be truthtellers were liked and trusted significantly more than those believed to be liars, even when this belief was mistaken. Physiological lie detection measured using thermal imaging also failed: Observers' fingertip temperatures did not significantly differ between lies and true stories. If at all, the temperature effects pointed in the opposite direction of the lies-as-threat expectations: Fingertip temperatures increased somewhat while confronted with lies compared to true stories. Results support the impression that people are bad at detecting lies, and cast doubt on whether fingertip temperature responses could be used as lie detection mechanisms.

Background/Objective: Witness’ interviews within a judicial investigation represent a complex procedure because human memory is subjected to suggestions and personal re-elaboration processes. Therefore, it is necessary to use an interview method that guarantees the accuracy of the testimony. Method: This research focused on the development a modified version of the Cognitive Interview based on the use of the five Ws (who, what, where, when and why), commonly used in journalism, which we named the 5Ws-CI. The goal of the present study is to compare this method with two interrogation techniques already present in the literature, the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) and the Cognitive Interview with the Category Clustering Recall (CCR) and to test the moderating role of Machiavellianism. Seventy-two subjects individually watched a video-clip of a robbery and were randomly assigned to one of the three interview groups (ECI, CCR-CI, or 5Ws-CI) and the veracity condition (truth tellers vs. lie tellers). Results: Subjects in the 5Ws-CI and CCR groups remembered significantly more information than subjects in the ECI condition, without impacting on accuracy. Also, truth tellers reported more details than lie tellers. No significant difference was found between the 5Ws-CI and CI-CCR interview groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results indicate that the 5Ws-CI and CCR techniques might be effective methods and outperform the ECI.

In four experiments, we examined whether pairs of truth tellers could be distinguished from pairs of lie tellers by taking advantage of the fact that only pairs of truth tellers can refer to shared events by using brief expressions (high-context communication style). In Experiments 1 and 2, pairs of friends and pairs of strangers pretending to be friends answered (i) questions they likely had expected to be asked (e.g., ‘How did you first meet’?) and (ii) unexpected questions (e.g., ‘First, describe a shared event in a few words. Then elaborate on it’). Pairs were interviewed individually (Experiment 1, N = 134 individuals) or collectively (Experiment 2, N = 130 individuals). Transcripts were coded for the verbal cues details, complications, plausibility, predictability, and overlap (Experiment 1 only) or repetitions (Experiment 2 only). In two lie detection experiments observers read the individual transcripts in Experiment 3 (N = 146) or the collective transcripts in Experiment 4 (N = 138). The verbal cues were more diagnostic of veracity and observers were better at distinguishing between truths and lies in the unexpected than in the expected questions condition, but only when the pair members were interviewed individually.

Background/Aim: has shown that sketching while narrating facilitates the elicitation of information and verbal veracity cues in single interviews. We examined if these effects are retained when suspects are shown their sketch after one week in a repeated interview. Method: Participants (N = 173) completed a mock mission and then told the truth or lied about it in an immediate interview (interview 1). Participants either verbally reported the mission (Free recall condition) or sketched it while describing what they were sketching (sketch condition). After one week, all participants were asked for a free recall without sketching (interview 2). Half of the participants in the Sketch condition had access to their sketch while they verbally reported the event whereas the remaining half did not access the sketch. Results: Truth tellers provided more information than lie tellers in both interviews, and sketching elicited more information than a free recall but only in Interview 1. Participants who had access to their sketch in interview 2 repeated more information than those who did not have access, but accessing the sketch did not have an effect on veracity cues. Conclusions: Thus, sketching enhanced the elicitation of information in Interview 1 and access to the sketch in interview 2 seemed helpful for recalling previously reported information.

Research has shown that complications are more common in truth tellers’ accounts than in lie tellers’ accounts, but there is currently no experiment that has examined the accuracy of observers’ veracity judgments when looking at complications. A total of 87 participants were asked to judge 10 transcripts (five truthful and five false) derived from a set of 59 transcripts generated in a previous experiment by Deeb et al. Approximately half of the participants were trained to detect complications (Trained), and the other half did not receive training (Untrained). Trained participants were more likely to look for complications, but they did not detect them accurately, and thus their veracity judgments did not improve beyond Untrained participants’ judgments. We discuss that the training may have been too brief or not sensitive enough to enhance decision-making.

Verbal content analyses to differentiate truthful and fabricated statements, such as the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), are used in lie detection research as well as in practice to assess the credibility of statements in criminal court proceedings. Meta-analyses demonstrate validity of verbal content analyses above chance, but the traditional research paradigms usually lack either ecological or internal validity. The authors discuss the usage of immersive virtual reality scenarios to solve this dilemma, as both types of validity can be increased by this approach. In this integrative review of existing literature on the current use of virtual scenarios in forensic and victimology research, the authors extract strengths and limitations for possible VR studies in the context of verbal content analysis. Furthermore, novel ethical challenges involved are summarized and implications for future studies proposed. Overall, we argue in favor of using virtual reality scenarios to validate methods for verbal content analysis, but also urge to consider ethical limitations regarding unwanted short- and long-term aftereffects.

Introduction. Many theoretical models explain differences in changes in physiological indicators during the implementation of lying and truth-declaring behaviors in polygraph tests. From our point of view, lies can be regarded as a special goal-oriented behavior provided by the implementation of corresponding functional systems – elements of subjective experience. At the same time, polygraph examinations are stressful due to the motivation for the test. We were interested in the characteristics of the actualization of subjective experience when the result of information concealment behavior is achieved under the above-mentioned conditions. Methods. The experiment used the modified version of the Block Test by V. V. Korovin in the form of the concealed information test. Heart rate registrations were carried out. Both entropy (as an indicator of rhythm complexity that reflects systemic subordination of behavior) and spectral indicators of rhythm (as a stress severity assessment) were calculated. The examinees were instructed to conceal information obtained at various stages of ontogenesis. Results. The study was carried out with the participation of 40 subjects who underwent polygraph examinations during their employment. We analyzed their heart rate entropy in the process of producing honest and false answers under stressful conditions. When information concealment behaviors are realized, entropy changes in different directions. However, this dependence has not been revealed for the new experience, apparently due to the process of temporary system dedifferentiation, i.e. the deactualization of comparatively new systems. Discussion. A polygraph test model based on the system-evolutionary approach was proposed. In the process of passing the test, there appears to be a formation of non-universal functional systems of ‘lies’, but rather those depending on the component of the experience to which this information belongs. Moreover, it is difficult to considerably improve information concealment behaviors of the examinees, due to the impossibility of rapid correction of behavior based on feedback.

IntroductionAdults are typically poor judges of the veracity of statements, requiring the need for alternative methods for detecting lies. One alternative method to human lie-detectors is using computer-based linguistic analysis which may present a more reliable method for detecting dishonesty. Moreover, while previous research has examined linguistic differences between typically developing children’s and adults’ truthful and dishonest reports, no study to date has examined whether maltreated children exhibit different linguistic cues to dishonesty. Thus, the current study examined maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s linguistic and syntactic cues to children’s truthful and dishonest reports.MethodsNine- to 12-year-olds, half of whom were maltreated, played a computer game with a confederate: half of the children experienced a transgression (i.e., playing a forbidden game and crashing the computer) and were coached to conceal it, and half of the children experienced no transgression (i.e., simply played a computer game). All children were then interviewed about the event. The current study utilized automated linguistic and syntactic analysis software to compare children’s truthful reports (no transgression occurred) with dishonest reports.Results and DiscussionResults indicated that maltreated and non-maltreated children did not differ in their indicators of dishonesty. Dishonest reporters used more first-person plural pronouns and cognitive mechanism terms and had less syntactically complex reports compared to truthful reporters. Finally, first-personal plural pronouns, cognitive mechanism terms, and syntactic complexity accurately classified (74.2%) the veracity of children’s reports. The current findings present a new indicator of dishonesty (syntactic complexity) and suggest that indicators from typically developing populations may apply to maltreated children when coaching occurred.

Deceit often occurs in questionnaire surveys, which leads to the misreporting of data and poor reliability. The purpose of this study is to explore whether eye-tracking could contribute to the detection of deception in questionnaire surveys, and whether the eye behaviors that appeared in instructed lying still exist in spontaneous lying. Two studies were conducted to explore eye movement behaviors in instructed and spontaneous lying conditions. The results showed that pupil size and fixation behaviors are both reliable indicators to detect lies in questionnaire surveys. Blink and saccade behaviors do not seem to predict deception. Deception resulted in increased pupil size, fixation count and duration. Meanwhile, respondents focused on different areas of the questionnaire when lying versus telling the truth. Furthermore, in the actual deception situation, the linear support vector machine (SVM) deception classifier achieved an accuracy of 74.09%. In sum, this study indicates the eye-tracking signatures of lying are not restricted to instructed deception, demonstrates the potential of using eye-tracking to detect deception in questionnaire surveys, and contributes to the questionnaire surveys of sensitive issues.

In the past, deception detection research has explored whether there were specific personal characteristics that were related to lying and found that factors such as personality and morality are indeed related to lying. However, past research has usually focused on a variable-centered approach. Yet, a person-centered might be more suitable here as it allows for the study of people in an integrative manner. In this experiment, 673 students completed a questionnaire which included measures of the five factors of personality, the level of moral disengagement, the perceived cognitive load when lying, lying strategies, frequency of lying and the LiES scale, a tool measuring the tendency to tell self-serving, altruistic and vindicative lies. We performed a Latent Profile Analysis to integrate personality, moral disengagement, and perceived cognitive load scores into specific profiles. Then, we related profile membership to lying behavior. We obtained four profiles, and found that extraversion, moral disengagement, and the perceived cognitive load contributed most to profile differences. We also found that lying frequency did not differ across profiles, whereas lying tendency did. In conclusion, our results suggest that several facets of the individual play a joint role in lying behavior, and that adopting a person-centered approach might be a good strategy to explore the role of interpersonal differences in lie detection research.

Despite its controversial status, the lie detection test is still a popular organizational instrument for credibility assessment. Due to its popularity, we examined the effect of the lie-detection test feedback on subsequent moral behavior. In three studies, participants could cheat to increase their monetary payoff in two consecutive phases. Between these two phases the participants underwent a mock polygraph test and were randomly given Deception Indicated (DI) or No Deception Indicated (NDI) assigned feedback. Then, participants engaged in the second phase of the task and their level of dishonesty was measured. Study 1 showed that both NDI and DI feedback (but not the control) reduced cheating behavior on the subsequent task. However, Study 2 showed that the mere presence of the lie-detection test (without feedback) did not produce the same effect. When the role of the lie detector as a moral reminder was cancelled out in Study 3, feedback had no effect on the magnitude of cheating behavior. However, cheaters who were given NDI feedback exhibited a lower level of physiological arousal than cheaters who were given DI feedback. These results suggest that lie detection tests can be used to promote honesty in the field, and that, while feedback type does not affect the magnitude of cheating, NDI may allow people to feel better about cheating.

Sketching while narrating is effective for eliciting information and veracity cues in single interviews. In the current research, we tested this technique in multiple interviews. Participants were interviewed three times over three weeks about a genuine (truth tellers) or a fabricated (lie tellers) memorable event. They sketched while narrating in Week 1, Week 2, Weeks 1 and 2, or not at all (verbal statement only). Statements were coded for total, core, peripheral, and common knowledge details, self-handicapping strategies, complications, plausibility, and proportions of complications and core details. In the third interview and across interviews, the Sketch instruction resulted in a higher proportion of core details. Truth tellers reported more total and core details and complications and fewer common knowledge details and exhibited a higher proportion of complications than lie tellers. Truth tellers' stories also sounded more plausible than lie tellers' stories. The interaction effects were not significant. Thus, sketching while narrating seemed to have a similar effect on truth tellers and lie tellers in the current study.

Anomalous phenomena are human experiences that are characterized by challenging the foundations of current scientific ontology (i.e., psi phenomena). The problem lies in the fact that some studies have obtained significant results that support the existential validity of psi phenomena. This fact calls into question the role of psychology -and specifically that of psychological assessment- in scientifically justifying and objectively evaluating this type of behavior. This work examines the construct validity and reliability of the Multivariable Multiaxial Suggestibility Inventory-2 (MMSI-2), a psychometric test that measures both anomalous phenomena and the main psychological predictive variables that could generate them. The study included 804 participants without psychiatric history. The participants were evenly distributed into two groups: participants who believe in the existence of the paranormal and participants who are non-believers. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied, factorial invariance between both groups was examined, and Cronbach's alpha and Omega reliability coefficients were calculated. The results allowed accepting the ‘strong factorial invariance’ for the internal structure of the MMSI-2. In parallel, latent means analysis indicated that believers had higher scores than non-believers in the 4 latent variables of the test. Regression models indicated that the Clinical Personality Tendencies (CPT), Incoherent Manipulations (IMA) and Altered States of Consciousness (ASC) scales predicted 51.2% of anomalous phenomena. It is concluded that the MMSI-2, with its 174 items and 20 scales, is a valid and reliable psychometric instrument. This research is a continuation of the Escolà-Gascón (2020) report, in which the first psychometric properties of the MMSI-2 were published.

In this article, we attempt to unravel the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. First we will cite research demonstrating that observers believe lie tellers display more nervous behaviors than truth tellers; that observers pay attention to nervous behaviors when they attempt to detect deception; and that lie tellers actually feel more nervous than truth tellers. This is all in alignment with a lie detection approach based on spotting nervous behaviors. We then will argue that the next, vital, step is missing: Research has found that lie tellers generally do not display more than truth tellers the nervous behaviors laypersons and professionals appear to focus on. If observers pay attention to nervous behaviors but lie tellers do not come across as being nervous, lie detection performance is expected to be poor. Research has supported this claim. We finally discuss ideas for research into lie detection based on non-verbal behaviors.

Although the traditional “lie detector” test is used frequently in forensic contexts, it has (like most test of deception) some limitations. The concealed knowledge test (CKT) focuses on participants’ recognition of privileged knowledge rather than lying per-se and has been studied extensively using a variety of measures. A “guilty” suspect’s interaction with and memory of crimescene items may vary. Furthermore, memory for crimescene items may diminish over time. The interaction of encoding quality and test delay on CKT efficiency has been previously implied, but not yet demonstrated. We used a response-time based CKT to detect concealed knowledge from shallow and deep study procedures after 10-min, 24-h, and 1-week delays. Results show that more elaborately encoded information afforded higher detection accuracy than poorly encoded items. Although classification accuracy following deep study was unaffected by delay, detection of poorly elaborated information was initially high, but compromised after 1 week. Thus, choosing optimal test items requires considering both test delay and initial encoding level.

The present study examined the effectiveness of a Modified-Comparison Questions Technique, used in conjunction with the polygraph, to differentiate between common travelers, drug traffickers, and terrorists at transportation hubs. Two experiments were conducted using a mock crime paradigm. In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned 78 participants to either a drug condition, where they packed and lied about illicit drugs in their luggage, or a control condition, where they did not pack or lie about any illegal items. In Experiment 2, we randomly assigned 164 participants to one of the two conditions in Experiment 1 or an additional bomb condition, where they packed and lied about a bomb in their luggage. For both experiments, we assessed participants’ RR interval, heart rate, peak-to-peak amplitude of Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) and all three combined, using Discriminant Analyses to determine the classification accuracy of participants in each condition. In both experiments, we found decelerated heart rates and increased peak-to-peak amplitude of GSR in guilty participants when lying in response to questions regarding their crime. We also found accurate classifications of participants, in both Experiment 1 (drug vs. control: 84.2% vs. 82.5%) and Experiment 2 (drug vs. control: 82:1% vs. 95.1%; bomb vs. control: 93.2% vs. 95.1%; drug vs. bomb: 92.3% vs. 90.9%), above chance level. These findings indicate that Modified-CQT, combined with a polygraph test, is a viable method for investigating suspects of drug trafficking and terrorism at transportation hubs such as train stations and airports.

Most of deception research has focused on past events that were either completely truthful or a complete fabrication. However, people often tell a mixture of truths and lies. This could enable investigators to make within-subjects comparisons between different themes discussed in one interview, which we examined in the current experiment. Seventy-three participants took part in the experiment and were asked to either tell the truth about two themes, or to tell the truth about one theme and lie about the second theme in a HUMINT setting. Results showed that examining the differences in the amount of detail provided by the interviewees for each theme- obtained through a Theme-Selection strategy (a within-subjects measure)- yielded stronger results than examining differences between truth tellers and liars based on the entire interview without accounting for themes (between-subjects measure). The present study therefore highlighted the effectiveness of within-subjects measurements to both discriminate truth tellers from liars and to discover which section of a statement is false.

The use of faked identities is a current issue for both physical and online security. In this paper, we test the differences between subjects who report their true identity and the ones who give fake identity responding to control, simple, and complex questions. Asking complex questions is a new procedure for increasing liars' cognitive load, which is presented in this paper for the first time. The experiment consisted in an identity verification task, during which response time and errors were collected. Twenty participants were instructed to lie about their identity, whereas the other 20 were asked to respond truthfully. Different machine learning (ML) models were trained, reaching an accuracy level around 90–95% in distinguishing liars from truth tellers based on error rate and response time. Then, to evaluate the generalization and replicability of these models, a new sample of 10 participants were tested and classified, obtaining an accuracy between 80 and 90%. In short, results indicate that liars may be efficiently distinguished from truth tellers on the basis of their response times and errors to complex questions, with an adequate generalization accuracy of the classification models.

Since time immemorial, lying has been a part of everyday life. For this reason, it has become a subject of interest in several disciplines, including psychology. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of the literature and thinking to date about the evolution of lie detection techniques. The first part explores ancient methods recorded circa 1000 B.C. (e.g., God’s judgment in Europe). The second part describes technical methods based on sciences such as phrenology, polygraph and graphology. This is followed by an outline of more modern-day approaches such as FACS (Facial Action Coding System), functional MRI, and Brain Fingerprinting. Finally, after the familiarization with the historical development of techniques for lie detection, we discuss the scope for new initiatives not only in the area of designing new methods, but also for the research into lie detection itself, such as its motives and regulatory issues related to deception.

Existing research is inconclusive regarding the influence of perceiver gender and target gender on lie detection. Researchers have offered a number of conclusions regarding gender effects in deception detection (e.g., women are better at lie detection than men, participant and target gender interact in predicting deception detection accuracy, there are no gender effects in deception detection). In the current work, we revisit the question of whether and how gender influences lie detection, employing a large database of controlled stimuli, a large sample size, and the analytical advantages provided by signal detection theory. Participants viewed videos of male and female targets telling truths and lies about interpersonal relationships, and after each video, they rendered a truth or lie judgment. Female targets were easier to "read" (i.e., greater sensitivity) and were called liars more frequently than male targets. No effects of participant gender were observed. This work sheds light on an important issue in the lie detection literature (i.e., does gender matter?), and it identifies important considerations for understanding gender biases and cross-gender social interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess statement consistency in pairs of deceptive and truth‐telling suspects when the Devil's Advocate approach is implemented. This approach involves asking suspects an ‘opinion‐eliciting’ question for arguments that support their opinions followed by a ‘devil's advocate’ question to elicit opposing arguments. On the basis of the confirmation bias and impression management literatures, we predicted that truth‐telling pairs would provide more consistent arguments in response to the opinion‐eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. Deceptive pairs were expected to be equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Method: Forty‐nine pairs of participants were matched, based on their strong opinions about a controversial topic, and were asked to either tell the truth or lie about their opinions to an interviewer. Pair members were permitted to prepare for the interview together. Each participant was interviewed individually with the devil's advocate approach. Results: Prepared truth‐telling pairs were more consistent with each other in response to the opinion‐eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. However, and as predicted, deceptive pairs were equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Conclusions: The Devil's Advocate approach seems to be a promising interview technique for assessing consistency among pairs who hold false opinions and pairs who hold true opinions. It also has implications for the consistency heuristic as consistency is not diagnostic of deception or honesty unless the interview technique is taken into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.'s (2016b) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of results was the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used.

Lie detection based on nonverbal behavior is not a standard method, it is an intuitive process, applied by lay persons, but also professionals. Some of the major sources (e.g. widespread Interrogation Manual by F. Inbau et al., 2004) offer clear recommendations about the nonverbal behavior of liars to investigators of serious crime. These findings are not supported by the research, moreover they can lead to lowering the ability to detect lie (Blair, Kooi 2004). Another topic is mapping the skills of professionals (police officers, members of the secret services) and non-specialists to detect lies by nonverbal signs. Across the studies (with few exceptions) a low performance in the task of detecting lies by nonverbal expressions (Ekman P., 1996; Vrij, 2004 and others) is found. The levels of success are usually around the level of chance. The potential reasons for such results are analyzed (e.g. Blair, Kooi, 2004). However a group of psychologists led by P. Ekman and M. O'Sullivan (O'Sullivan, 2007) managed to find in their years lasting research a group of people whose ability to detect lies is well above the population average. This group is diverse in terms of age, interests and professions, all of them come from the USA. There were certain common features found in this group and also a focus on similar phenomena in the detection of lying. The main goal and research question is to find out: what is the success rate of differentiation between lies and truths in this specific professional group of Czech population, is it the same or different from the results reported in the context of available resources. The research will focus on the ability of respondents to determine the truth or deceit on the basis of non-verbal and paraverbal expressions of observed subjects, with focus on specific professional groups - mainly police workers. We assume, that the police officers are frequently in the contact with people, who are not willing to reveal critical information or who are motivated to lie. The procedure: The material consisted of short video sections originating from real investigation of serious crime. After the pilot study the stimuli material has been created consisting of 21 video-sections lasting 30 seconds, the sound of the videos was filtered, so the paraverbal characteristics were maintained, but the content of the speech was unclear. The research sample consisted of 197 police officers from 5 departments. Selected results: The TRUTH detection accuracy - (the accuracy of correct evaluation of the truth-telling people on the video) was situated between 0,25 (25%) to 0,75 (75%). The LIE detection accuracy - was situated between 0,44 (44%) to 1 (100%). The overall accuracy (means combined accuracy of lie and truth detection) was situated between 0,33 (33%) and 0.86 (86%). 5 respondents obtained results, that were above the average of the group in all the three categories (truth, lie, overall). The discussion: The results indicate that (among others) we can find so called lie bias among the police workers, which is common in the similar professional settings and it involves higher expectations of lie and deceit on the side of the communication partner. In the common population the opposite tendency - so called truth bias - tendency to evaluate others (situations, behavior, statements) as truthful is found. The study managed to find police workers, who obtained better results than guessing and also better than the average of the tested group. The main limit of the study is probably the lack of repeated retest of the sample. This and other findings were involved into the police training focused on communication and lie during criminal investigation, which is not systematic in Czech Republic. The plan is to test also other professional groups in the future.

Proponents of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the United States have claimed that such methods are necessary for obtaining information from uncooperative terrorism subjects. In the present article, we offer an informed, academic perspective on such claims. Psychological theory and research shows that harsh interrogation methods are ineffective. First, they are likely to increase resistance by the subject rather than facilitate cooperation. Second, the threatening and adversarial nature of harsh interrogation is often inimical to the goal of facilitating the retrieval of information from memory and therefore reduces the likelihood that a subject will provide reports that are extensive, detailed, and accurate. Third, harsh interrogation methods make lie detection difficult. Analyzing speech content and eliciting verifiable details are the most reliable cues to assessing credibility; however, to elicit such cues subjects must be encouraged to provide extensive narratives, something that does not occur in harsh interrogations. Evidence is accumulating for the effectiveness of rapport-based information-gathering approaches as an alternative to harsh interrogations. Such approaches promote cooperation, enhance recall of relevant and reliable information, and facilitate assessments of credibility. Given the available evidence that torture is ineffective, why might some laypersons, policymakers, and interrogation personnel support the use of torture? We conclude our review by offering a psychological perspective on this important question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigates how easily it can be detected whether a child is being truthful or not in a game situation, and it explores the cue validity of bodily movements for such type of classification. To achieve this, we introduce an innovative methodology – the combination of perception studies (in which one uses eye-tracking technology) and automated movement analysis. Film fragments from truthful and deceptive children were shown to human judges who were given the task to decide whether the recorded child was being truthful or not. Results reveal that judges are able to accurately distinguish truthful clips from lying clips in both perception studies. Even though the automated movement analysis for overall and specific body regions did not yield significant results between the experimental conditions, we did find a positive correlation between the amount of movement in a child and the perception of lies, i.e., the more movement the children exhibited during a clip, the higher the chance that the clip was perceived as a lie. The eye-tracking study revealed that, even when there is movement happening on different body regions, judges tend to focus their attention mainly on the face region.