Suchergebnisse

[EN]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 fi eld. 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. ; [ES]Antecedentes: la detección de mentiras ha interesado a la humanidad a lo largo de la historia. También a los científicos, quienes han explorado diferencias psicológicas y conductuales al mentir vs. decir la verdad, así como modos de aumentar la precisión de la detección. Método: recientemente se han hecho avances sustanciales en esta área. En el presente artículo se revisan algunos de ellos. Resultados: se describen (a) las investigaciones y teorías contemporáneas sobre cómo la gente (intenta) detecta(r) mentiras; (b) los avances en procedimientos estratégicos de entrevista para detectar mentiras; (c) los hallazgos de meta-análisis recientes sobre aproximaciones sistemáticas para la detección verbal del engaño; y (d) algunos aspectos importantes de la detección psicofisiológica de la mentira. Al final del artículo se esbozan algunas tendencias emergentes y necesidades de investigación de cara al futuro. Conclusiones: el área de investigación de la detección de mentiras ha experimentado grandes desarrollos en tiempos recientes. A menudo (aunque no siempre) se ha centrado en desarrollar procedimientos de detección de mentiras de base empírica para su utilización en contextos aplicados (p. ej., por la policía). Algunas vías de indagación novedosas están empezando a explorar temas nuevos y, seguramente, darán lugar a futuros hallazgos nuevos e interesantes.

This research was formally endorsed by the National Police College of Spain, the Behavior and Law Foundation, and the Promoción y Divulgación Científica, S. L. company. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporters. ; [EN]Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.'s (2016b) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of resultswas the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used. ; Junta de Castilla y León. Consejería de Educación. Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación (Ref.: SA086U14)