Can verbal content cues regarding the veracity of a statement be coded reliably with an approach called Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA)? We used meta-analysis, a statistical method for summarizing large numbers of studies to address this question. 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 meta-regression 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. Given worldwide popularity of CBCA in the evaluation of sexual abuse and other forensic applications, its reliability is of utmost importance. Implications for research vs. field settings, for future research and for forensic practice in the United States and Europe are discussed.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpas0000426

Background: Deception detection has been a longstanding concern throughout human history. It has also interested scientists, who have explored psychological and behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers, as well as ways to improve detection accuracy. Method: In recent years, substantial advances have been made in the field. Some of these advances are briefly reviewed in the current article. Results: A description is provided of (a) research and contemporary theories on how people (try to) detect deception; (b) recent advances on strategic interviewing to detect deception; (c) the integrative findings of recent meta-analyses on systematic verbal lie detection approaches; and (d) several important aspects concerning psychophysiological detection of deception. Also, some emerging trends and research needs for the future are outlined at the end of the article. Conclusions: Deception detection research is a lively and dynamic area of applied psychology that has experienced substantial developments in recent times. Much (though not all) of these research efforts have focused on developing empirically-based lie-detection procedures to be used by practitioners (e.g., the police) in applied settings. A number of new topics are just starting to be examined. These novel research avenues will surely yield interesting new findings in the future.

http://www.psicothema.com/english/psicothema.asp?id=4376

Deception detection research has shown that police officers are less truth-biased and make their veracity judgments with greater confidence than do nonofficers. Here we examined nonofficers, novice officers, and experienced officers’ response bias, confidence, and generalized communicative suspicion. In Experiment 1, novice officers aligned with nonofficers in terms of both generalized communicative suspicion scores and confidence, with both these groups scoring lower than experienced officers. Generalized communicative suspicion scores and veracity judgments were not significantly related for either sample. However, novice officers aligned with experienced officers in terms of judgments: both police groups were lie-biased, whereas nonofficers were truth-biased. These findings suggest that unlike experienced officers, who have embraced the police culture to a greater degree, novice officers are not dispositionally suspicious (generalized communicative suspicion); however, they are able to mirror the prototypical police behavior (deception judgments) in police-related contexts. Experiment 2 supported these notions.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Flhb0000169

This meta-analysis investigates linguistic cues to deception and whether these cues can be detected with computer programs. We integrated operational definitions for 79 cues from 44 studies where software had been used to identify linguistic deception cues. These cues were allocated to six research questions. As expected, 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. However, liars were not more uncertain than truth-tellers. These effects were moderated by event type, involvement, emotional valence, intensity of interaction, motivation, and other moderators. Although the overall effect size was small, theory driven predictions for certain cues received support. These findings not only further our knowledge about the usefulness of linguistic cues to detect deception with computers in applied settings but also elucidate the relationship between language and deception.