Millennia of legal content criteria of lies and truths: wisdom or common-sense folly?

Long before experimental psychology, religious writers, orators, and playwrights described examples of lie detection based on the verbal content of statements. Legal scholars collected evidence from individual cases and systematized them as “rules of evidence”. Some of these resemble content cues used in contemporary research, while others point to working hypotheses worth exploring. To examine their potential validity, we re-analyzed data from a quasi-experimental study of 95 perjury cases. The outcomes support the fruitfulness of this approach. Travelling back in time searching for testable ideas about content cues to truth and deception may be worthwhile

Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: the impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity

Three experiments were able to demonstrate the usefulness of dual-process models for the understanding of the process of credibility attribution. According to the assumptions of dual-process models, only high task involvement and high cognitive capacity leads to intensive processing of verbal and nonverbal information when making credibility judgments. Under low task involvement and/or low cognitive capacity, people predominantly use nonverbal information for their credibility attribution. In Experiment 1, participants under low or high task involvement saw a film in which the nonverbal behaviour (fidgety vs. calm) and the verbal information (low versus high credibility) of a source were manipulated. As predicted, when task involvement was low, only the nonverbal behaviour influenced participants' credibility attribution. Participants with high task involvement also used the verbal information. In Experiment 2 and 3, the cognitive capacity of the participants was manipulated. Participants with high cognitive capacity, in contrast to those of low cognitive capacity, used the verbal information for their credibility attribution

Are computers effective lie detectors? A Meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception

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

Tatsächliche und wahrgenommene Richtigkeit von Personenidentifizierungen älterer Augenzeugen

<jats:title>Zusammenfassung</jats:title><jats:p>In einer Zusammenschau dreier in englischsprachigen Fachzeitschriften publizierten Studien wurden die tatsächliche und die wahrgenommene Richtigkeit von Identifizierungsaussagen älterer und junger Augenzeugen verglichen. Die Studien wurden in ein integratives Modell von Augenzeugenaussagen und deren Evaluation eingebettet, das zwischen einer Informationsverarbeitungsebene, einer Metagedächtnisebene und einer Beurteilungsebene unterscheidet. Studie 1 von Martschuk und Sporer (2018) untersuchte anhand einer Metaanalyse den Alterseffekt beim Wiedererkennen von Gesichtern auf der Informationsverarbeitungsebene. Die Ergebnisse zeigten einen robusten Alterseffekt (bessere Leistungen jüngerer Versuchsteilnehmer) sowie einen Vorteil zugunsten von Gesichtern der eigenen Altersgruppe („own-age bias“). Studie 2 von Martschuk et al. (2019) gab Aufschluss über Metagedächtnisprozesse als Funktion des Alters von Zeugen in einer Feldstudie. Sie zeigte eine zunehmende Dissoziierung zwischen der Identifizierungsleistung und der subjektiven Sicherheit sowie der Entscheidungszeit von 16 bis 85 Jahren. Studie 3 (Martschuk und Sporer 2020) untersuchte auf der Beurteilungsebene, wie Geschworene in einer Simulationsstudie ältere im Vergleich zu jungen Augenzeugen wahrnehmen: Geschworene waren sich nur teilweise altersbedingter Gedächtnisveränderungen bewusst, berücksichtigten diese jedoch nicht ausreichend während der Beweiswürdigung von Identifizierungsaussagen älterer Augenzeugen. Zusammenfassend zeigen die Studien, dass das Gedächtnis und das Metagedächtnis für Gesichter im Alter fehleranfälliger sind als im jungen Alter. Demzufolge sollten Urteiler, d. h. Ermittlungsbeamte, Staatsanwälte, Geschworene und Richter das Alter von Zeugen, zusammen mit deren Entscheidungszeiten und ihrer subjektiven Sicherheit miteinbeziehen, wenn sie Identifizierungsaussagen bewerten.</jats:p&gt

Fantasie und Wirklichkeit

Sporer SL, Küpper B. Fantasie und Wirklichkeit. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2004;212(3):135-151

Realitätsüberwachung und die Beurteilung des Wahrheitsgehalts von Erzählungen: Eine experimentelle Studie

Sporer SL, Küpper B. Realitätsüberwachung und die Beurteilung des Wahrheitsgehalts von Erzählungen: Eine experimentelle Studie. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. 1995;26:173-193

Confidence of Older Eyewitnesses: Is It Diagnostic of Identification Accuracy?

Since the late 1980s evidence has been accumulating that confidence recorded at the time of identification is a reliable postdictor of eyewitness identification. Nonetheless, there may be noteworthy exceptions. In a re-analysis of a field study by Sauerland and Sporer (2009; N = 720; n = 436 choosers between 15 and 83 years old) we show that the postdictive value of confidence was reduced for participants aged 40 years or older. Different calibration indices and Bayesian analyses demonstrate a progressive dissociation between identification performance and confidence across age groups. While the confidence expressed following an identification remained unchanged across the lifespan, identification accuracy decreased. Young, highly confident witnesses were much more likely to be accurate than less confident witnesses. With increasing age, witnesses were more likely to be overconfident, particularly at the medium and high levels of confidence, and the postdictive value of confidence and decision times decreased. We conclude that witness age may be an important moderator to take into account when evaluating identification evidence