Steering a new course for deception detection research.

Accuracy, Confidence, and Experiential Criteria for Lie Detection Through a Videotaped Interview

“…The cognitive approach to lie detection supports a consideration of the intrinsic characteristics of verbal reports to discriminate lies from truthful accounts. Recent studies have underlined that this approach downplays the role of other cognitive processes intervening in deception and does not include an adequate consideration of individual differences (22, 23, 26). However, the brief jurisprudential review referred to above shows that judges and jurors are generally instructed to pay attention to internal and external consistency in witness narratives, associated sense of confidence, quantity, and specificity of reported details, and intrinsic reasonableness and plausibility of witness' accounts.…”

Deception detection.

“…The three approaches reported in the interviewing to detect deception section, imposing cognitive load, asking unanticipated questions and the strategic use of evidence, have in common that they are based on the assumption that interviewers can use techniques that liars fi nd more diffi cult to address than truth tellers. This cognitive lie detection approach is now the dominant approach in lie detection research ( Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012 ;Kassin, 2012 ;Lane & Vieira, 2012;Vrij & Granhag, 2012a, and practitioners are encouraged to use it by both scholars ( Kassin, 2012 ) and practitioners ( Tedeschini, 2012 ).…”

The sound of critics: New tunes, old tunes, and resistance to play.

“…We are pleased that our cognitive interviewing to detect deception approach received support from a large number of academics and professional commentators (Bond, 2012; Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2012; Kassin, 2012; Lane & Vieira, 2012; Tedeschini, 2012). Evans et al (2012) report that they have tested some of our methods themselves and replicated our findings.…”

“…We see our efforts very much as work in progress and several commentators gave useful guidance for improvements. Lane and Vieira’s (2012) discussion about the trade-offs between information elicitation and deception detection is worth considering, as are their views on individual differences in working memory capacity (see also Bond, 2012), and further theoretical refinement of the cognitive and social processes involved in deception. Evans et al (2012) correctly mention that applying ‘group-level’ research findings to an ‘individual case level’ remains a challenge, and we share their views about the importance of researching interpreter-mediated interactions, networks (rather than individuals) and lying about future events (rather than past events).…”