What have we learned about cues to deception? A survey of expert opinions

Figures & data

Table 1. List of cues included in the survey.

Cue	Description
Between-statement consistency	Between-statement consistency refers to the degree of overlap between statements across repeated interviews
Nervous behavior	Nervous behavior refers to behavior suggestive of a general increase in anxiety. It includes behaviors such as sweating, fidgeting, and increased pitch.
Gaze aversion	Gaze aversion is the same as not looking someone in the eye
Statement detail	Statement detail refers to the amount of information or comprehensiveness of a statement
Physical movements	Physical movements refer to any movements by a sender. It includes foot movements, hand movements, and postural shifts. Its opposite is stillness or rigidity.
Response latency	Response latency refers to the time it takes for senders to begin providing an answer to a question.
Verbal fluency	Verbal fluency refers to how smoothly and easily senders can express themselves.
Makes sense	A statement makes sense when it has a coherent structure, is easy to follow, and is free from contradictions

Table 2. Explanatory mechanisms of deception cues included in the survey.

Mechanism	Description
Arousal	Lying is more physiologically arousing than truth telling, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Attempted Control	Liars attempt to control their behavior to a greater extent than truth tellers, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Cognitive	Lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Emotional	Liars experience different emotions compared to truth tellers, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Leakage	Liars, in comparison to truth tellers, exhibit greater discrepancies between their verbal statements and their non-verbal behavior, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Microexpressions	Microexpressions are momentary facial movements that express a true underlying emotion, which can result in reliable cues to deceit
Self-presentation	Both liars and truth tellers regulate the impressions they make on others, making cues to deceit faint

Figure 1. Example question on cues and moderators.

Figure 2. Expert beliefs about deception cues.

Table 3. Additional cues mentioned by respondents not included in the survey

n	Cue
3	Verifiable details
2	Complications
2	Unusual details
1	Admission of memory loss
1	Equivocal, evasive, and tentative language
1	Facial pleasantness
1	Pronoun use
1	Spontaneous corrections
1	Statement-evidence consistency
1	Voice pitch

Note: N refers to the number of respondents that mentioned this cue in an open-ended question. Respondents could mention more than one cue.

Figure 3. Beliefs about moderators of deception cues.

Table 4. Additional moderators mentioned by respondents not included in the survey.

n	Moderators
2	Age
2	Culture
2	Language proficiency
2	Sender personality (e.g. extraversion, assertiveness, self-esteem)
1	Central vs. peripheral details
1	Experimental paradigm
1	Gender
1	Modality (e.g. face to face or mediated)
1	Motivation to be accurate
1	Question expectedness
1	Question type
1	Self-handicapping strategies
1	Type of preparation

Note: n refers to the number of respondents that mentioned this cue in an open-ended question. Respondents could mention more than one cue.

Figure 4. Beliefs about explanatory mechanisms of deception cues. Note: Height of the colors on each bar represents the proportions of each response.

Table A1. Frequency counts of expert opinions about cues to deception.

Cue	Liars are less	No difference	Liars are more	Don't Know
Consistency	14	14	15	7
Detail	36	8	2	4
Fluency	15	25	2	8
Gaze	3	41	2	4
Latency	3	10	24	13
Makes Sense	26	16	4	4
Movement	17	24	3	6
Nervous	2	35	9	4

Table A2. Frequency counts of expert opinions about deception cue moderators.

Cues	Moderator	Truth tellers become less	No moderating effect	Liars become less	Don't know
Consistency	Cognitive Load	3	22	16	9
Consistency	Motivation	10	24	3	13
Consistency	Preparation	11	30	0	9
Consistency	Stakes	9	19	4	18
Detail	Cognitive Load	1	23	14	12
Detail	Motivation	3	24	8	15
Detail	Preparation	5	28	5	12
Detail	Stakes	1	22	11	16
Fluency	Cognitive Load	0	32	9	9
Fluency	Motivation	2	28	4	16
Fluency	Preparation	8	29	0	13
Fluency	Stakes	3	21	9	17
Gaze	Cognitive Load	4	35	2	9
Gaze	Motivation	3	30	3	14
Gaze	Preparation	0	32	4	14
Gaze	Stakes	4	28	3	15
Latency	Cognitive Load	10	29	2	9
Latency	Motivation	6	20	4	20
Latency	Preparation	1	27	10	12
Latency	Stakes	7	19	3	21
Movement	Cognitive Load	0	29	7	14
Movement	Motivation	1	20	7	22
Movement	Preparation	2	26	4	18
Movement	Stakes	1	23	8	18
Nervous	Cognitive Load	3	32	2	13
Nervous	Motivation	0	35	5	10
Nervous	Preparation	2	25	6	17
Nervous	Stakes	1	34	6	9
Sense	Cognitive Load	2	20	16	12
Sense	Motivation	5	24	4	17
Sense	Preparation	12	28	0	10
Sense	Stakes	3	23	7	17

Table A3. Frequency counts of expert opinions about deception cue theories.

	Little to no scientific support	Some scientific support	Moderate scientific support	Strong scientific support	Robust scientific support	Don't know
Microexpressions	35	7	3	2	0	3
Emotional	24	13	9	1	0	3
Leakage	21	11	7	7	1	3
Arousal	15	19	10	3	0	3
Attempted Control	11	17	13	4	2	3
Self-Presentational	8	14	9	8	8	3
Cognitive	2	4	12	19	10	3