skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 215323 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Who Can Best Catch a Liar?: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Differences in Detecting Deception
Journal: Forensic Examiner  Volume:15  Issue:1  Dated:Spring 2006  Pages:6-11
Author(s): Michael G. Aamodt Ph.D.; Heather Custer M.S.
Date Published: 2006
Page Count: 6
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A meta-analysis that involved 108 studies and 16,537 subjects examined whether there were individual differences in evaluators' ability to detect deception.
Abstract: The analysis found that confidence, age, experience, education, and gender were not significantly related to accuracy in detecting deception. It also found that "professional lie catchers" such as police officers, detectives, judges, and psychologists were no more accurate in detecting deception than students and other citizens. There were not a sufficient number of relevant studies available to examine the relationship between evaluators' personality dimensions and accuracy in detecting deception. Although these findings could mean that people are not good at detecting deception regardless of their age, gender, confidence, and experience, the findings could also indicate that the artificial situations and tasks used in the studies were not proper settings for the detection of deception. In "real world" situations, judgments about deception are often based on such factors as the story not making logical sense, a subject not directly answering the questions being asked, and inconsistencies with previous statements or the statements of others. Deception is best detected when there is a baseline of behavior, the subject's responses are spontaneous, and there is a consequence for getting caught. In most, if not all, of the studies in this meta-analysis, such conditions were absent. Future studies should involve more realistic situations. To be included in the meta-analysis, a publication had to report the results of an empirical investigation and had to include a correlation coefficient, another statistic that could be converted to a correlation coefficient, or tabular data or raw data that could be analyzed to yield a correlation coefficient. 4 tables and 36 references
Main Term(s): Police research
Index Term(s): Comparative analysis; Interview and interrogation; Suspect interrogation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.