Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers?

Abstract

Summary The current meta‐analysis examines the cognitive approach to lie detection. Our goal was to assess the practical utility of this approach by examining whether it improves the lie detection ability of human observers. The cognitive approach to lie detection led to an average accuracy rate of 60.00%, 95% CI [56.42; 63.53] and a bias corrected average accuracy rate of 55.03%, 95% CI [48.83; 61.16]. Critically, this result is moderated by whether observers were informed, or not, about which cues to focus on. Naïve observers had average accuracy rates of 52.37%, 95% CI [48.80%; 55.93%], little better than chance. In contrast, informed observers had average accuracy rates of 75.81%, 95% CI [71.52%; 79.86%]. This promising result is qualified by indications of publication bias, considerable heterogeneity between studies, and a lack of research on important practical issues, such as the influence of counter‐measures. Although these shortcomings raise a note of caution, we remain optimistic about future research on the topic.

“What works?” Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the investigative interviewing research literature

“…Four papers in the special issue explore various aspects of interviewing to detect deception, including a meta-analysis of the Verifiability Approach (Verschuere et al, 2021), an assessment of how cognitive approaches to interviewing can facilitate judgments of deception (Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021), an extended analysis of contentbased techniques for credibility assessment (Oberlader et al, 2021), and a meta-analysis of experimental and field studies evaluating the comparison question polygraph test (Honts et al, 2021). First,…”

“…A second set of recommendations related to the need to explore contextual moderators important to ecological validity (Gabbert et al, 2021;Horry et al, 2021;Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Oberlader et al, 2021;Otgaar et al, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021). For example, many of the current experimental paradigms lack elements that are central to the experience of witnesses, victims, sources, or suspects, including the degree of perceived stress or arousal, the variety of motivations associated with providing information, or the complexity of the situations that are so often the purpose of an interview.…”

Milestones and signposts in the science of investigative interviewing

“…Looking forward, the future of the practice of investigative interviewing centers around the reliability of both the underlying research and how that research is translated into strategies and tactics. Toward that end, even well-established, evidence-based stratagems require continued study and occasional review to build confidence in their utility (see Horry et al, 2021;Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Oleszkiewicz & Watson, 2021). I would like to end with a reminder that investigative interviewing must be viewed not just as a system with interacting agents and emergent properties, but as a system of systems.…”

A Critical Review of Cognitive Load Lie Detection

“…Levine et al, 2018). However, two subsequent meta-analyses (Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2018) give cause for further scrutinizing the basis of cognitive load lie detection. Researchers typically employ reaction time as a lie detection cue, and they propose that people deliver lies more slowly than truths (e.g., Walczyk et al, 2003).…”

“…The cognitive load approach improved lie detection by 7% compared to control conditions; those gains rose to 27% when observers knew the relevant cues to focus on. However, Mac Giolla and Luke (2021) note that significant limitations plague the presumed improvement. Few studies in the meta-analysis included informed observers; those studies typically employed research designs wherein training effects may have confounded the accuracy rates.…”