What Have We Learned About Cues to Deception? A Survey of Expert Opinions

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 advocatingthe use of a specific deception cue cannot be widely representative of expert opinion. Keywords: cues to deception, experts, consensu

On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research.

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prio

Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summaries a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the past quarter century. The great weight of that evidence challenges the view that jurors abdicate their responsibilities as fact finders when faced with expert evidence or that they are pro-plaintiff, anti-defendant, and anti-business. The Petitioners and amici on behalf of petitioners make a number of overlapping, but empirically unsupported, assertions about jury behavior in response to expert testimony, namely that juries are frequently incapable of critically evaluation expert testimony, are easily confused, give inordinate weight to expert testimony, are awed by science, defer to the opinions of unreliable experts, and, implicitly, that in civil trials juries tilt in favor of plaintiffs and against corporations

Expert and Lay Perceptions of Prosecutorial Misconduct

An examination of legal experts and lay perceptions of prosecutorial misconduct