Element contents
Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics
The Linguistics of Analysing Deception in Written Texts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2026
Summary
This Element explores the analysis of deception in written texts from a forensic linguistic perspective. It provides an overview of the evolution of deception research and philosophy, from its earliest conceptualisation as a sin against God, to cue leakage theories and pseudoscientific beliefs built on medieval concepts of deceptive behaviour, to current psychology and linguistic based approaches to identifying lying. This requires an appreciation of where linguistic analysis fits into the eight decades plus of deception research, which is addressed here: the relationships between deceptive intention and communication; between emotional states and the linguistic features claimed to represent them; and between language and linguistic analysis. This Element is written for the non-linguist professional, especially those engaged in investigative and inquisitorial contexts, to provide them with some knowledge to assess the strengths and limitations of approaches to analysing lying and deception as produced in written texts.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Forensic LinguisticsOnline ISBN: 9781009671125Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 09 July 2026
References
Aamodt, M. G. & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.Google Scholar
Adams, S. H. & Jarvis, J. P. (2006). Indicators of veracity and deception: An analysis of written statements made to police. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13(1), 1–22.10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, M. & Levine, T. (2008). The language of truthful and deceptive denials and confessions. Communication Reports, 21(2), 82–91.10.1080/08934210802381862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria based content Analysis: A meta analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 3–12.10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilarino, M. (2016). Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201–210.10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anolli, L. & Balconi, M. (1998). Mentire con le parole: analisi degli indicatori verbali micro-e macrostrutturali. Ricerche di Psicologia, 22(2), 121–149.Google Scholar
Anolli, L. & Balconi, M. (1999). Le parole della menzogna: Per un’analisi delle strategie verbali del mentitore. Rassegna italiana di linguistica applicata, 31(2), 37–58.Google Scholar
Anolli, L., Balconi, M., & Ciceri, R. (2002). Deceptive Miscommunication Theory (DeMiT): A new model for the analysis of deceptive communication. Emerging Communication, 3, 73–100.Google Scholar
Aristotle (2008). Peri Poetikes/Poetics. Translation by S. H. Butcher. Urbana: Project Gutenberg.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J. & Franklin, S. (2007). An architectural model of conscious and unconscious brain functions: Global Workspace Theory and IDA. Neural Networks, 20, 955–961.10.1016/j.neunet.2007.09.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, A., ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2013). Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high‐stakes deceivers. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 300–313.10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02054.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. (1996). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. In Onega, S. & Landa, J. A., eds., Narratology. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Lying to yourself: The enigma of self-deception. In Lewis, M. & Saarni, C., eds., Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. New York: The Guildford Press, pp. 166–183.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.10.1017/S004740450001037XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & the Psycholinguistics Group of the Spatial Framing Adverbials Project (2009). The discourse function of sentence-initial adverbials: Studies in comprehension. Linguistic & Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring Conference, 7–14. Paris, 21–23 September 2009.Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & Vonk, W. (2000). Temporal adverbials as segmentation markers in discourse comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 74–87.10.1006/jmla.1999.2670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108686136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, G. (2017). Catching Liars by Listening Carefully: Promises and Challenges for Verbal Credibility Assessment. Doctoral thesis, Maastricht University. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6271688/c5573.pdf.10.26481/dis.20170127gbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Van der Plas, I. (2020). A model statement does not enhance the verifiability approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 96–105.10.1002/acp.3596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151–163.10.1002/jip.1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 243.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F. (2008). Commentary a few can catch a liar, sometimes: Comments on Ekman and O’Sullivan (1991), as well as Ekman, O’Sullivan, and Frank (1999). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1298–1300.10.1002/acp.1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F. Jr. & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492.10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, G. D. & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 313–329.10.1002/acp.1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F., Levine, T. R., & Hartwig, M. (2014). New findings in non‐verbal lie detection. In Granhag, P. A, Vrij, A, & Verschuere, B, eds., Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 37–58.10.1002/9781118510001.ch2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr & Robinson, M. (1988). The evolution of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(4), 295–307.10.1007/BF00987597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection ‘wizards’. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109–115.10.1007/s10979-006-9016-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsellino, C. (2013). Motivations, moral components, and detections of lying behavior to benefit self and others. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 70–76.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Brader, C. & Winchester, N. (2025). HL Bill III of 2024–2025. Crime and Policing Bill. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2025-0026/LLN-2025-0026.pdf.Google Scholar
Braun, M. T., Van Swol, L. M., & Vang, L. (2015). His lips are moving: Pinocchio effect and other lexical indicators of political deceptions. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 1–20.10.1080/0163853X.2014.942833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, E. & Hutchison, K. A. (2025). Reaction time as an actual and a perceived cue to deception under cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(3), e70075.10.1002/acp.70075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennen, T. & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: a blind alley. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 613410.10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennen, T. & Magnussen, S. (2022). The science of lie detection by verbal cues: What are the prospects for its practical applicability? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 835285.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.835285CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinton, A. (1983). St Augustine and the problem of deception in religious persuasion. Religious Studies, 19(4), 437–450.10.1017/S003441250001547XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242.10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., Qin, T., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2003). Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. Proceedings of the Symposium on Intelligence and Security Informatics. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., White, C. H., & Rockwell, P. A. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: Effects of suspicion on communication behaviors and perceptions. Communication Theory, 6(3), 243–267.10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00128.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K. & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 64(3), 243–267.10.1080/10570310009374675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Stoner, G. M., Bonito, J. A., & Dunbar, N. E. (2003). Trust and deception in mediated communication. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. USA.Google Scholar
Carlucci, M. E., Compo, N. S., & Zimmerman, L. (2013). Lie detection during high‐stakes truths and lies. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 314–323.10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02064.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisolm, R. M. & Feehan, T. D. (1997). The intent to deceive. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 143–159.10.2307/2025605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, E. (1995). Towards a history of European physical sensibility: Pain in the later middle ages. Science in Context, 8(1), 47–74.10.1017/S0269889700001897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, R. A., Scheibe, R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Dodd, D. H. (1999). Interviewer questions and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 3(2), 77–85.10.1207/s1532480xads0302_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1997). A failed appeal. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 4(2), 287–302.10.1558/ijsll.v4i2.287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damphousse, K. R. (2009). Voice stress analysis: Only 15 percent of lies about drug use detected in field test. NIJ Journal, 259, 8–12.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray.10.1037/10001-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daviesl, G. M., Westcott, H. L., & Horan, N. (2000). The impact of questioning style on the content of investigative interviews with suspected child sexual abuse victims. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6(2), 81–97.10.1080/10683160008410834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, A., Disney, A., D’elia, B., & Keenan, J. P. (2018). Lying, deception, and the brain. In Meibauer, J., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Lying. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–92.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198736578.013.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denault, V., Patterson, M. L., Zloteanu, M., & Talwar, V. (2024). The myth of body language and the fallacies of body language analysis and training programs. In Chadee, D. & Kostić, A., eds., Body Language Communication. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 151–186.10.1007/978-3-031-70064-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M. et al. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 30(1), 1–12.10.5093/apj2019a9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denault, V., Talwar, V., Plusquellec, P., & Larivière, V. (2022). On deception and lying: An overview of over 100 years of social science research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(4), 805–819.10.1002/acp.3971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory: Theories about deception and paradigms for studying it: A critical appraisal of Buller and Burgoon’s interpersonal deception theory and research. Communication Theory, 6(3), 297–310.10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00131.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979.10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M. & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In Yuille, J. C., ed., Credibility Assessment. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Kirkendol, S. E., Tang, J., & O’Brien, T. P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 177–202.10.1007/BF00987487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1096–1103.10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E. et al. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Rosenthal, R., Green, C. R., & Rosenkrantz, J. (1982). Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 433–446.10.1016/0022-1031(82)90064-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, L. N. (1994). A validity assessment of written statements from suspects in criminal investigations using the SCAN technique. Police Studies, 17, 77.Google Scholar
Driskell, D. (2012). Effectiveness of deception detection training: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 713–731.10.1080/1068316X.2010.535820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (1981). Frege: Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). A web of deceit: A neo-Gricean view on types of verbal deception. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 139–165.10.1163/187731011X597497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016). Comparing and combining covert and overt untruthfulness. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 174–208.10.1075/pc.23.1.08dynCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. (1988). Lying and nonverbal behavior: theoretical issues and new findings. Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 163–175.10.1007/BF00987486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32(1), 88–106.10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, A. & Lacerda, F. (2007). Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. (2009). What is lying? The Journal of Philosophy, 106(1), 29–56.10.5840/jphil200910612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallis, D. (2012). Lying as a violation of Grice’s first maxim of quality. Dialectica, 66(4), 563–581.10.1111/1746-8361.12007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J. B., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-based lie detection: Scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 123–131.10.1038/nrn3665CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiori, M. (2009). A new look at emotional intelligence: a dual-process framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 21–44.10.1177/1088868308326909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontanari, J. F. (2023). Kant’s modal asymmetry between truth-telling and lying. Symmetry, 15(2), 555.10.3390/sym15020555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. G. & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1429.10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1429CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, M. G. & Feeley, T. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 58–75.10.1080/00909880305377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. California: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452220345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamer, M. (2011). Detecting of deception and concealed information using neuroimaging techniques. In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E., eds., Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–113.10.1017/CBO9780511975196.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganis, G. & Keenan, J. P. (2009). The cognitive neuroscience of deception. Social Neuroscience, 4(6), 465–472.10.1080/17470910802507660CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganis, G., Morris, R. R., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Neural processes underlying self- and other-related lies: An individual difference approach using fMRI. Social Neuroscience, 4(6), 539–553.10.1080/17470910801928271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillings, M. (2024). Corpus Linguistic Approaches to Deception Detection. Oxford: Routledge.10.4324/9781003197591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of other’s ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 332–346.10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramigna, R. (2013). Augustine on lying: A theoretical framework for the study of types of falsehood. Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies, 41(4), 446–487.10.12697/SSS.2013.41.4.05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L. A. (1999). Repeated interrogations: Stretching the deception detection paradigm. Expert Evidence, 7, 163–174.10.1023/A:1008993326434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (2001). Aspects of Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198242522.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (2008). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Adler, J. E & Lance, J. R., eds., Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 777–785.Google Scholar
Grieve, J. & Woodfield, H. (2023). The Language of Fake News. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009349161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). Habermas: Questions and counterquestions. Praxis International, 4(3), 229–249.Google Scholar
Hakun, J. G., Ruparel, K., Seelig, D. et al. (2009). Towards clinical trials of lie detection with fMRI. Social Neuroscience, 4(6), 518–527.10.1080/17470910802188370CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002) Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Vol. 2. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Webster, J. (2003). On Language and Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. T. (2004). Lies in conversation: An examination of deception using automated linguistic analysis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26(26), 535–540.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. T. (2005). Automated linguistic analysis of deceptive and truthful synchronous computer-mediated communication. HICCS, 1, 22c.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E, Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1–23.10.1080/01638530701739181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Goorha, S. (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, 327–343.10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M. & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.10.1037/a0023589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M. & Bond, C. F. Jr (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta‐analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676.10.1002/acp.3052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claim settings: Exploring the effect of information protocol. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 47–59.10.1111/lcrp.12092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342.10.1177/1088868314556539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2017). Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 819.10.1037/pas0000426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343.10.1177/0093650214534974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haworth, K. (2013). Audience design in the police interview: The interactional and judicial consequences of audience orientation. Language in Society, 42(1), 45–69.10.1017/S0047404512000899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G. (2008). The art of deception: Myths about lie detection in written confessions. . In Smets, L & Vrij, A, eds., Cahiers Police Studies: Special Investigative Interviewing Techniques. Brussels: Politeia, pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (2016). Interrogation: A Review of the Science. www.fbi.gov/file-repository/reports-and-publications/hig-report-interrogation-a-review-of-the-science-september-2016.pdf/view.Google Scholar
Ho, S. M., Hancock, J. T., Booth, C., & Liu, X. (2016). Computer-mediated deception: Strategies revealed by language-action cues in spontaneous communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(2), 393–420.10.1080/07421222.2016.1205924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollien, H. & Harnsberger, J. (2006). Voice Stress Analyzer Instrumentation Evaluation: Final Report. Counterintelligence Field Agency, CIFA contract-FA-4814–04-0011. Gainsville: IASCP, University of Florida. https://antipolygraph.org/documents/UF_Report_03_17_2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Hollien, H., Harnsberger, J. D., Martin, C. A., & Hollien, K. A. (2008). Evaluation of the NITV CVSA. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(1), 183–193.10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00596.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtgraves, T. & Jenkins, E. (2020). Texting and the language of everyday deception. Discourse Processes, 57(7), 535–550.10.1080/0163853X.2019.1711347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-and R-based implicature. In Schriffin, D., ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horvath, F. (1978). An experimental comparison of the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 338–344.10.1037/0021-9010.63.3.338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horvath, F., McCloughan, J., Weatherman, D., & Slowik, S. (2013). The accuracy of auditors’ and Layered Voice Analysis (LVA) operators’ judgments of truth and deception during police questioning. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(2), 385–392.10.1111/1556-4029.12066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, M., & Grant, T. (2025). Is LIWC reliable, efficient, and effective for the analysis of large online datasets in forensic and security context? Applied Corpus Linguistics, 5(1), 100118.10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2024). Psychology and the lie detector industry: A fifty-year perspective. Biological Psychology, 190, 108808.10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iacono, W. G. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2019). Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 86.10.1037/lhb0000307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, S., Dawson, E. J., & Brashers, D. (1996). Information manipulation theory: A replication and assessment. Communications Monographs, 63(1), 70–82.10.1080/03637759609376375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, Role and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. K. (2006). Memory and reality. American Psychologist, 61(8), 760–771.10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.760CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. K. & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Bush, J. G., & Mitchell, K. J. (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people’s memories. Social Cognition, 16(2), 199–224.10.1521/soco.1998.16.2.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. (March 1980). Chappaquiddick. The Christian Science Monitor. www.csmonitor.com/1980/0321/032165.html.Google Scholar
Jordan, S., Brimbal, L., Wallace, D. B. et al. (2019). A test of the micro‐expressions training tool: Does it improve lie detection? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(3), 222–235.10.1002/jip.1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, S. M. & Lee, H. (2014). Detecting deception by analyzing written statements in Korean. Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence, 2(2), 1–10.10.5195/lesli.2014.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashy, D. A. & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1037–1051.10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1037CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, W. R., & Dunn, T. M. (2010). Detecting deception on field settings: a review and critique of the criminal justice and psychological literatures. Policing, 33(2), 305–320.10.1108/13639511011044902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchhuebel, C. (2013). The Acoustic and Temporal Characteristics of Deceptive Speech. Doctoral dissertation. University of York.Google Scholar
Kleinberg, B., Nahari, G., Arnt, A., & Verschuere, B. (2017). An investigation on the detectability of deceptive intent about flying through verbal deception detection. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 21.10.1525/collabra.80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L. & Comadena, M. E. (1979). Telling it like it isn’t: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5(3), 270–285.10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00640.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P. & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15–29.10.1111/j.1468-2958.1974.tb00250.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. The Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 395–415.10.1075/jnlh.7.49somCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacerda, F. (2009). LVA Technology – the illusion of ‘lie detection’. Proceedings FONETIK, The XXIIth Swedish Phonetics Conference, pp. 220–225.Google Scholar
Lacerda, F. (2013, June). Voice stress analyses: Science and pseudoscience. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 19(1). Acoustical Society of America.10.1121/1.4799435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. (2000). Lying as doing deceptive things with words: A speech act theoretical perspective. In Astington, J. W., ed., Mind in the Making. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 177–196.Google Scholar
Lee, K. (2013). Little liars: Development of verbal deception in children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(2), 91–96.10.1111/cdep.12023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): a theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392.10.1177/0261927X14535916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2020). Duped: Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Levine, T. R., Feeley, T. H., McCornack, S. A., Hughes, M., & Harms, C. M. (2005). Testing the effects of nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. Western Journal of Communication, 69(3), 203–217.10.1080/10570310500202355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. & Serota, K. B. (2025). A fresh view of the veracity effect in deception research: Bond and DePaulo re-examined, Communication Research, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251316927.Google Scholar
Levine, T. R. & McCornack, S. A. (2014). Theorizing about deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 431–440.10.1177/0261927X14536397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levyatan, Y. (2009). Harold D Lasswell’s analysis of Hitler’s speeches. Media History, 15(1), 55–69.10.1080/13688800802583299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisofsky, N., Kazzer, P., Heekeren, H. R., & Prehn, K. (2014). Investigating socio-cognitive processes in deception: A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia, 61, 113–122.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenzo-Dus, N. & Kinzel, A. (2019). ‘So is your mom as cute as you?’: Examining patterns of language use in online sexual grooming of children. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies, 2, 15–39.10.18573/jcads.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, T. J. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 646–671.10.1177/1745691619838258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, T. J., Giolla, E. M., Memon, A. et al. (2025). What have we learned about cues to deception? A survey of expert opinions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 31(5), 511–530.10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1981). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mann, S., Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Pontigia, L. (2020). Detecting smugglers: Identifying strategies and behaviours in individuals in possession of illicit objects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 372–386.10.1002/acp.3622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, D. M. (2020). The deception faucet: A metaphor to conceptualize deception and its detection. New Ideas in Psychology, 59, 100816.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, D. M., & Griffin, D. J. (2020). When context matters: how false, truthful, and genre-related communication styles are revealed in language. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(3), 287–310.10.1080/1068316X.2019.1652751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwen, S., & Prideaux, G. D. (1997). The development of marked structures to code episode boundaries, Journal of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, 19, 49–59.Google Scholar
Masip, J., Bethencourt, M., Lucas, G., Sanchez-San Segundo, M., & Herrero, C. (2012). Deception detection from written accounts. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 103–111.10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00931.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masip Pallejá, J., Garrido Martín, E., & Herrero Alonso, M. C. (2002). La detección de la mentira mediante la técnica SCAN. Psicopatología Clínica Legal y Forense, 2(2), 39–62.Google Scholar
Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Defining deception. Anales de Psicologia, 20(1), 147–171.Google Scholar
Masip, J. & Herrero, C. (2013). ‘What would you say if you were guilty?’ Suspects’ strategies during a hypothetical behavior analysis interview concerning a serious crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 60–70.10.1002/acp.2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 99–122.10.1080/10683160410001726356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, D. & Wilson, M. (2024). Behavioral indicators of deception and associated mental states: Scientific myths and realities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 48(1), 11–23.10.1007/s10919-023-00441-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, B. (2024). Voice stress analysis: Is ‘some evidence’ sufficient grounds for making legal determinations? Barry Law Review, 29, 30.Google Scholar
McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 1–16.10.1080/03637759209376245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A. & Levine, T. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communications Monographs, 57(3), 219–230.10.1080/03637759009376197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., Levine, T. R., Solowczuk, K. A., Torres, H. I., & Campbell, D. M. (1992). When the alteration of deception is viewed as deception: an empirical test of Information Manipulation Theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 19–29.10.1080/03637759209376246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., Paik, J. E., Wisner, A. M., & Zhu, X. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 348–377.10.1177/0261927X14534656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A. & Parks, M. R. (1986). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. Annals of the International Communication Association, 9(1), 377–389.10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuaid, S. M., Woodworth, M., Hutton, E. L., Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2015). Automated insights: Verbal cues to deception in real-life high-stakes lies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(7), 617–631.10.1080/1068316X.2015.1008477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShane, B. B., Böckenholt, U., & Hansen, K. T. (2016). Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: An evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 730–749.10.1177/1745691616662243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meibauer, J. (2014). A truth that’s told with bad intent: Lying and implicit content. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28(1), 97–118.10.1075/bjl.28.05meiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2018). The linguistics of lying. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 357–375.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melkman, E. P., Hershkowitz, I., & Zur, R. (2017) Credibility assessment in child sexual abuse investigations: A descriptive analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 76–85.10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Science and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 159–179.10.1177/026540758900600202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokkonen, M. & Lindstedt, C. (2016). The evolutionary ecology of deception. Biological Reviews, 91(4), 1020–1035.10.1111/brv.12208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nahari, G. (2018). Reality monitoring in the forensic context: Digging deeper into the speech of liars. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 432–440.10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G. (2023). Meta-perspectives on verbal lie detection. Brain Sciences, 13, 392.10.3390/brainsci13030392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G., Ashkenazi, T., Fisher, R. P. et al. (2019). ‘Language of lies’: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(1), 1–23.10.1111/lcrp.12148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G. & Pazuelo, M. (2015). Telling a convincing story: Richness in detail as a function of gender and information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(4), 363.10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G. & Vrij, A. (2015). Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the scenario. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(10), 987–999.10.1080/1068316X.2015.1077248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? SCAN as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 68.10.1037/h0093965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227–239.10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02069.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.10.1177/0146167203029005010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NITV Federal Services LLC. Uncovering Deception in Police Recruitment with Innovative CVSA Technology. www.cvsa1.com/blog/uncovering-deception-in-police-recruitment-with-innovative-cvsa-technology/. Accessed 03/07/2025.Google Scholar
Nortje, A. & Tredoux, C. (2019). How good are we at detecting deception? A review of current techniques and theories. South African Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 491–504.10.1177/0081246318822953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J. et al. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440.10.1037/lhb0000193CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberlader, V. A., Quinten, L., Banse, R. et al. (2020). Validity of content‐based techniques for credibility assessment – How telling is an extended meta‐analysis taking research bias into account? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 393–410.10.1002/acp.3776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, D. E., Huffman, M. C., Burd, T. E., & O’Shea, C. L. (2024). Truth or lie: Ability of listeners to detect deceptive emergency calls of missing children. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 16(2), 97–108.10.5093/ejpalc2024a9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and deception detection: Why most people can’t ‘read’ others, but a few can. Applications of Nonverbal Communication, 215, 253.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, M. & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L. A., eds., Deception Detection in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge University Press, pp. 269–286.10.1017/CBO9780511490071.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S. (2023). Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 203, 144–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S., Saussure, L. D., & Maillat, D. (2016). Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication. Verbal Communication, 3, 509–534.10.1515/9783110255478-026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Finding deceptive online spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1, 309–319.Google Scholar
Paul Ekman Group www.paulekman.com/.Google Scholar
Picornell, I (2013). Cues to Deception in a Textual Narrative Context: Lying in Written Witness Statements. PhD Thesis. Aston University. https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/19316/.Google Scholar
Picornell, I. & Coulthard, M. (2022). Detecting faked texts. In Picornell, I, Perkins, R & Coulthard, M, eds., Methodologies and Challenges in Forensic Linguistic Casework. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 114–128.10.1002/9781394266661.ch8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S., McCabe, S., Woodworth, M., & Peace, K. A. (2007). Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? … or is it? An investigation of the effects of motivation and feedback on deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 297–309.10.1348/135532506X143958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S. & Ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19(5), 508–514.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02116.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, S. & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 57–75.10.1348/135532509X433151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., Baker, A., & Wallace, B. (2011). Would I lie to you? ‘Leakage’ in deceptive facial expressions relates to psychopathy and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 133–137.10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S. & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 443–458.10.1007/BF01498980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prideaux, G. D. (1989). Text data as evidence for language processing principles: The grammar of ordered events. Language Sciences, 11(1), 27–42.10.1016/0388-0001(89)90013-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prideaux, G. D. (2000). Discourse analysis and psycholinguistics: Breaking down barriers. In A. Lommel & A. Melby, eds., LACUS Forum, 26, 1–16.Google Scholar
Prideaux, G. D. & Hogan, J. T. (1993). Markedness as a discourse management device: The role of alternative adverbial clause orders. Word, 44, 397–411.10.1080/00437956.1993.11435909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulin, N. & Ternes, M. (2019). Is it time to kill the detection wizard? Emotional intelligence does not facilitate deception detection. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 131–138.10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salovey, P. & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 281–285.10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00381.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott‐Phillips, T. C. (2010). The evolution of relevance. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 583–601.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01095.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. R. (1975). The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History, 6(2), 319–332.10.2307/468422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Docan-Morgan, T. (2022). Unpacking variation in lie prevalence: Prolific liars, bad lie days, or both? Communication Monographs, 89(3), 307–331.10.1080/03637751.2021.1985153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakespear, W. (c. 1599) Julius Caesar. Poetry Foundation. www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears.Google Scholar
Shipp, T. & Izdebski, K. (1981). Current evidence for the existence of laryngeal microtremor and microtremor. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 26(3), 501–505.10.1520/JFS11391JCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shuy, R. (1998). The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Thousand Oaks: Sage.10.4135/9781452229133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, L. (2010). Tortured Subjects: Pain, Truth, and the Body in Early Modern France. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.10.1177/0956797611417632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, J. (1985). On the integration of linguistic description. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2. London: Academic Press, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2001). Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the Scientific Content Analysis Technique (SCAN); Police Research Series Paper. UK Home Office. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate: London.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1994). The primacy of truthtelling and the evolution of lying. In Sober, E., ed., From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–92.10.1017/CBO9780511624940.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self‐experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(5), 373–397.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<373::AID-ACP461>3.0.CO;2-03.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and the detection of deception. In Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L., eds., Deception Detection in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–102.10.1017/CBO9780511490071.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporer, S. L., Hauch, V., Masip, J., & Martschuk, N. (2025). A meta-analysis of field studies on criteria-based content analysis. European Psychologist. Advanced online publication.10.1027/1016-9040/a000561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporer, S. L. & Masip, J. (2024). A systematic review of the validity of criteria-based content analysis in child sexual abuse cases and other field studies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 31(9), 1–42.Google Scholar
Sporer, S. L. & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1–34.10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sooniste, T., Granhag, , Strömwall, P. A., L. A., & Vrij, A. (2015). Statements about true and false intentions: Using the cognitive interview to magnify the differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 371–378.10.1111/sjop.12216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steller, M. (1989). Recent Developments in Statement Analysis. In Yuille, J. C., ed., Credibility assessment. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment. Maratea, Italy, 14–24 June 1988. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
Steller, M. & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based content analysis. In Raskin, D. C., ed., Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 217–245.Google Scholar
Stoppard, T. (1968) The Real Inspector Hound: A Play. Samuel French. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Strömwall, L. & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(1), 19–36.10.1080/10683160308138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strömwall, L., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In Strömwall, L. A. & Granhag, P. A., eds., The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–250.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Colorado (2025). Pattern civil jury instructions, Chapter 19, Deceit based on Fraud. www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/Chapter%2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.10.1177/0261927X09351676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Brinke, L. & Porter, S. (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioral consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 469.10.1037/h0093929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Brinke, L., Sprigings, S., Brown, C., Kam, C., & Delmas, H. (2025). Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes, deception: Replication in a registered report. Law and Human Behavior, 49(2), 173–181.10.1037/lhb0000596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toma, C. L. & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 78–97.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. (2011). The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self Deception in Human Life. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von aussagen [Evaluation of statement credibility/ Statement validity assessment]. In Undeutsch, U., ed., Handbuch der Psychologie, 11. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe, pp. 26–181.Google Scholar
Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In Yuille, J., ed., Credibility Assessment. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 101–119.10.1007/978-94-015-7856-1_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Aviation Security: Efforts to Validate TSA’s Passenger Screening Behavior Detection Program Underway, but Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Validation and Address Operational Challenges. www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-763.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2017). Aviation Security: TSA Does Not Have Valid Evidence Supporting Most of the Revised Behavioral Indicators Used in Its Behavior Detection Activities. www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-608r.Google Scholar
Vanderhallen, M., Jaspaert, E., & Vervaeke, G. (2016). SCAN as an investigative tool. Police Practice and Research, 17(3), 279–293.10.1080/15614263.2015.1008479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B. (2024). Lie detection: Science or pseudoscience? In I. Bošković, ed., Legal and Forensic Psychology: What Is It and What It Is Not. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 17–28.10.1007/978-3-031-75875-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Bogaard, G., & Meijer, E. (2020). Discriminating deceptive from truthful statements using the verifiability approach: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 374–384.10.1002/acp.3775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Bogaard, G., & Meijer, E. (2024). Discriminating deceptive from truthful statements using the verifiability approach. Applied Police Briefings, 1, 45–47.10.22215/apb.v1i1.4870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Köbis, N. C., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Rand, D., & Shalvi, S. (2018). Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 462–469.10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, T. (2008). Adverbials of ‘Manner’ and ‘Manner Plus’ in written English: Why initial placement? SKY Journal of Linguistics, 21, 271–293.Google Scholar
Volbert, R. & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory: credibility assessment 25 years after Steller and Köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, 19(3), 207–220.10.1027/1016-9040/a000200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2000) Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3.10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2006). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(2), 193–206.10.1080/10683160512331331319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2), 297–312.10.1348/135532505X60816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 261–283.10.1023/A:1015313120905CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 8–41.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00723.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141–142.10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A. & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117.10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Lying about flying: The first experiment to detect false intent. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17(7), 611–620.10.1080/10683160903418213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121.10.1177/1529100610390861CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 295–317.10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S. et al. (2021). ‘Please tell me all you remember’: A comparison between British and Arab interviewees’ free narrative performance and its implications for lie detection. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(4), 546–559.10.1080/13218719.2020.1805812CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A. & Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7(2), 119–132.10.1080/10683160108401791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 499–518.10.1007/s10979-006-9066-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walczyk, J. J., Igou, F. P., Dixon, A. P., & Tcholakian, T. (2013). Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: A review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 14.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waln, R. F. & Downey, R. G. (1987). Voice stress analysis: use of telephone recordings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(4), 379–389.Google Scholar
Weiner, M. & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
White, C. H. & Burgoon, J. K. (2001). Adaptation and communicative design: Patterns of interaction in truthful and deceptive conversation. Human Communication Research, 27, 9–37.10.1093/hcr/27.1.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegmann, A. & Willemsen, P. (2017). How the truth can make a great lie: An empirical investigation of the folk concept of lying by falsely implicating. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 39, 3516–3521.Google Scholar
Wilcoxson, R. & Turley, E. L. (2024). What are we teaching future Australian criminal justice practitioners about lie detection? A review of criminology textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 35(1), 179–194.10.1080/10511253.2022.2160476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2006). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. & Ward, G., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wojciechowski, J., Stolarski, M., & Matthews, G. (2014). Emotional intelligence and mismatching expressive and verbal messages: A contribution to detection of deception. PloS One, 9(3), e92570.10.1371/journal.pone.0092570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wouters, E., Constanty, L., Urben, S., Amoussou, J. R., & Gasser, J. (2024) Use of statement validity analysis in minors alleging sexual assault: A systemic review. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 69, 1948–1958.10.1111/1556-4029.15604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., & Twitchell, D. P. (2003b). A longitudi–nal analysis of language behavior of deception in email. In Chen, H, Moore, R, Zeng, D, & Leavitt, J, eds., Intelligence and Security Informatics, 2665. Berlin: Springer, pp. 102–110.10.1007/3-540-44853-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T., & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. (2004). A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 139–165.10.1080/07421222.2004.11045779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L. & Zhang, D. (2007). Typing or messaging: Modality effect on deception detection in computer-mediated communication. Decision Support Systems, 44, 188–201.10.1016/j.dss.2007.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Berkowitz, L., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.