RT Article
T1 What have we learned about cues to deception? A survey of expert opinions
JF Psychology, crime & law
VO 31
IS 5
SP 511
OP 530
A1 Luke, Timothy J.
A1 Giolla, Erik Mac
A1 Memon, Amina
A1 Landström, Sara
A1 Granhag, Pär Anders 1964-
A1 Kassin, Saul 1953-
A2 Giolla, Erik Mac
A2 Memon, Amina
A2 Landström, Sara
A2 Granhag, Pär Anders 1964-
A2 Kassin, Saul 1953-
LA English
YR 2025
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1928052401
AB Researchers have accumulated a substantial body of empirical work studying observable behaviors that might distinguish truth tellers from liars – that is, cues to deception. We report a survey of N = 50 deception cue experts – active researchers on deception – who provided their opinions on three issues: (1) What cues distinguish between truthful and deceptive statements? (2) What moderators influence the magnitude and direction of cues to deception? (3) What explanatory mechanisms of deception cues are best supported by research? The experts displayed agreement on few issues. Expert opinion on cues to deception, potential moderators, and explanatory mechanisms is mixed and often conflicting. The single issue on which more than 80% of experts agreed was that gaze aversion is not generally diagnostic of deception. This lack of consensus suggests that substantial work remains to be done before broad agreement can be established. It follows that any practical recommendation advocating the use of a specific deception cue cannot be widely representative of expert opinion.
K1 Lying
K1 Consensus
K1 Experts
K1 Cues to deception
DO 10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292504