NEW APPROACHES IN DECEPTION DETECTION II. ACTIVE INTERVIEWING STRATEGIES AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

Meta-analytical evidence shows that behavioural indicators of deception are scant, poorly diagnostic and inconsistent. This has yielded a shift in deception detection research. Rather than passively scrutinising the communication sender to find tell-tale behavioural indicators of deception, the deception judge needs to (a) adopt an active role by using interviewing techniques specifically designed to detect deception, or (b) focus on contextual (rather than behavioural) deception cues. In the previous paper (Masip & Herrero, 2015a), we reviewed the antecedents of this change in focus, as well as the theoretical grounding of the new approaches. Here we describe specific interviewing strategies for detecting deception, as well as the (still scant) research on contextual deception indicia. In doing this, we hope to offer the reader a detailed perspective on the recent developments in this specific area of psychology and law