Deception detection methods have advanced beyond identifying nonverbal behavior with increasing focus on content analysis of verbal behavior. Content analysis deception detection has been dominated by lexicon-based approaches. The verifiability approach is a newer method of content analysis deception detection. The purpose of this study was to compare these approaches on the same data set to assess whether lexicon-based or verifiability approach content analysis is more accurate at detecting deception. In this study, lexicon-based content analysis using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software was conducted on accounts from a prior verifiability approach study. Separate regression models were constructed to assess honest and deceptive alibi accounts using each approach. Both the lexicon-based and verifiability models detected deception at above chance accuracy; predictive accuracy did not significantly differ between these approaches. Implications for the application of content analysis to detect deception are discussed.

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. In Experiment 1, participants imagined they were guilty or innocent suspects of minor crimes and selected a response to convince the police of their innocence. Compared to innocent suspects, guilty suspects were more likely to select pseudo-verifiable responses (which seemed verifiable but were not) rather than non-verifiable responses. Experiment 2 revealed that pseudo-verifiable responses increased observers' perceptions of innocence (rather than guilt). Experiment 3 suggested that people infer the police will not verify alibis of minor crimes, which may lead people to invent pseudo-verifiable responses. These results indicate that apparent verifiability does not necessarily indicate innocence. The police should systematically test alternative hypotheses whenever they encounter apparent verifiable responses.

Purpose Little research exists on the influence of emotion in forensic settings. To start filling this gap, we used a hypothetical interrogation scenario to examine the effects of emotional state on judgement, decision making, and information‐processing style across two separate experiments. Methods The participants were induced a specific emotion. Then, they read a scenario where a suspect was arrested and rated (1) the suspect's guilt, and (2) the extent to which they would use a number of tactics to interview the suspect. Based on the feelings‐as‐information theory and cognitive‐appraisal theories of emotion, we predicted that relative to angry or happy participants, sad participants would be less inclined to judge the suspect as guilty (judgement), would show a stronger tendency to select benevolent interrogation tactics and a weaker tendency to select hostile interrogation tactics (decision making), and would be more likely to use an analytic (rather than a heuristic) processing style. Results In Experiment 1 (conducted with college students), the judgement hypothesis was supported. In Experiment 2 (with mTurkers), the decision‐making hypothesis was supported. A meta‐analysis of the two experiments revealed that participants were more willing to select benevolent than hostile interrogation tactics and that, as predicted, sad participants were more willing than angry or happy participants to select benevolent tactics. However, emotion did not affect the participants’ tendency to select hostile tactics. Conclusion We tested emotion theories in an interrogation scenario. The significant results were consistent with the feelings‐as‐information and cognitive‐appraisal theories of emotion and have practical relevance.

For security and justice professionals, the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use. To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; “Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques”), a method (the BAI; “Behavior Analysis Interview”) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques.

For security and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods, and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use (e.g., on the life or liberty of individuals). To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques), a method (the BAI; Behavior Analysis Interview) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques. We conclude the article by inviting these organizations to work with the international community of scholars who have scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and lie (and truth) detection to implement evidence-based practices.

Para los profesionales de la seguridad y la justicia (policias, abogados, jueces), los miles de articulos revisados por pares sobre comunicacion no verbal representan fuentes importantes de conocimiento. Sin embargo, a pesar del alcance del trabajo cientifico realizado sobre este tema, los profesionales pueden recurrir a programas, metodos y enfoques que no reflejan el estado real de la ciencia. El objetivo de este articulo es examinar (i) los conceptos de comunicacion no verbal transmitidos por estos programas, metodos y enfoques, pero tambien (ii) las consecuencias de su uso (por ejemplo, sobre la vida o la libertad de las personas). Para lograr estos objetivos, describimos el alcance de la investigacion cientifica sobre la comunicacion no verbal. Se examina un programa (SPOT: Evaluacion de pasajeros mediante tecnicas de observacion), un metodo (BAI: Entrevista de analisis de conducta) y un enfoque (sinergologia) que contradicen el estado de la ciencia. Finalmente, presentamos cinco hipotesis para explicar por que algunas organizaciones en los campos de la seguridad y la justicia estan recurriendo a la pseudociencia y a las tecnicas pseudocientificas. Concluimos el articulo invitando a estas organizaciones a trabajar con la comunidad academica internacional especializada en la investigacion sobre comunicacion no verbal y deteccion de mentiras (y verdad) para implementar practicas basadas en la evidencia.

It is well known that memory is fallible and can sometimes be highly unreliable. The potential for significant memory errors is inherent in investigative and judicial processes. Yet memory evidence in various forms is, and will continue to be, essential in forensic settings. This chapter focuses on true and false memories relevant to forensic contexts. It discusses how human memory works, how witnesses can make minor and major memory errors such as misremembering aspects of an experienced event, and in some situations, remembering experiencing entire events that did not happen. We explain how these errors can occur as it relates to forensically relevant factors, some of which legal professionals have control over. We end with describing protocols investigative and legal professionals can use to avoid creating false memories in witnesses, preserve memory evidence, and promote quality accounts. We also introduce techniques that may be useful to identify accounts based on false memories.

This chapter focuses on juveniles, particularly juveniles of color, in police interrogation contexts. A scientific and professional perspective is provided on the factors affecting children in this setting. The chapter draws from the adult and juvenile literature on interrogation, as well as research on racial factors, to suggest that there are unique vulnerabilities that minority and stigmatized youth bring to the interrogation context. These vulnerabilities may increase their susceptibility to interrogative pressures and false confessions. The chapter also provides recommendations for ways to protect this vulnerable group and calls for interrogation scholars to add race and ethnicity to their research inquiries. This will provide a clearer empirical understanding of the mechanisms by which race and ethnicity affect interview and interrogation behavior and outcomes.

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.

Abstract In recognition of the role that false confessions play in wrongful convictions, it is recommended that criminal interrogations be video recorded from beginning to end to document the process by which suspects decide to confess. With a full video recording, it is assumed that jurors can see for themselves whether the defendant was coerced to confess to a crime he or she did not commit. Yet research suggests that video recording may in fact induce bias in interpretations of coercion and confession reliability, as factors like camera angles and close-ups can make confession evidence too vivid and persuasive. Without proper interpretation, even seemingly neutral recordings may unduly influence jurors’ decisions about confessions. This chapter reviews the literature on the usefulness of video-recorded interrogations in assisting jury decision-making, as well as the potential for procedural safeguards (e.g., expert testimony) to improve jurors’ understanding of the issues at hand.

Recently, the dearth of evidence supporting nonverbal-emotional approach to lie detection has favored the development of cognitive orientation. According to cognitive orientation, lying is cognitively more complex than truth telling, such that an artificial increase of cognitive difficulty during an interview will lead liars to show indicators of cognitive overload. In this paper we argue that lying is not always more cognitively difficult than telling the truth. Automatically inferring deception from the observation of cognitive load indicators may lead to erroneous judgments. Practitioners must know how memory and the human cognitive system work, so they can understand the actual meaning of cognitive load indicators. Scientists should develop cognitive models of deception to guide their research, and should base their research hypotheses on specific cognitive mechanisms and processes. Finally, because emotions influence cognition, the role of emotions in lie detection cannot be neglected.

Summary Brewin and Andrews (2016) review studies using three research paradigms—imagination inflation, false feedback, and memory implantation—and the prevalence rate for false memories differs widely across paradigms. Vast differences also result depending on the scheme used to code the recall data. Framing memory as a constructive process reveals many of the similarities between cognitive processes involved in memory for true and false events, similarities that account for why memories are far less likely to result for false events than true events. Memories for false events are just not as easy to construct and plant as has been suggested elsewhere. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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., of sexual abuse) are based on experienced or fabricated events. CBCA contains 19 verbal content criteria, which are frequently adapted for research on detecting deception. A total of k = 82 hypothesis tests revealed acceptable interrater reliabilities for most CBCA criteria, as measured with various indices (except Cohen's kappa). However, results were largely heterogeneous, necessitating moderator analyses. Blocking analyses and metaregression analyses on Pearson's r resulted in significant moderators for research paradigm, intensity of rater training, type of rating scale used, and the frequency of occurrence (base rates) for some CBCA criteria. The use of CBCA summary scores is discouraged. Implications for research vs. field settings, for future research and for forensic practice in the United States and Europe are discussed.