Australian Criminal Justice Student’s Beliefs about Lie Detection Methods

Australian Criminal Justice Student’s Beliefs about Lie Detection Methods | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Australian Criminal Justice Student’s Beliefs about Lie Detection Methods Rebecca Wilcoxson, Emma L. Turley This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Criminal justice practitioners’ use of erroneous lie-detection methods contributes to inaccurate convictions and research indicates some Queensland police are using fallible methods. A recent study showed that Queensland universities primarily ignore the topic of lie detection. Thus, criminal justice students entering Queensland universities with fallacious lie detection beliefs are unlikely to have them corrected. It was unknown if Australian criminal justice students hold inaccurate lie detection beliefs. Therefore, this mixed-methods study investigated undergraduate students’ beliefs about lie detection methods, many of whom were enrolled in criminal justice-focused degrees at a Queensland-based university. Sixty undergraduate students responded to open and closed-ended questions regarding their intentions to work in the criminal justice system, their opinion on their lie detection ability, methods used to determine deception, and thoughts about cross-cultural lie detection. The findings revealed a prevalence of false beliefs about cues to deception indicating educational needs for Australian criminal justice-career-focused students. Australia criminal justice students lie detection methods Introduction This study surveyed Australian criminal-justice-career-focused university students to uncover their perceived lie-detection abilities and the cues they use to detect deceit. Assessing statement veracity can be a core component of a criminal justice practitioner’s profession, and using erroneous lie detection methods contributes to wrongful convictions (Denault et al., 2020 ). Statement veracity is assessed during initial police interviews (Kassin et al., 2013; Messner et al., 2002). Suspects considered truthful in their denials are released, while those deemed to be lying can be subjected to adversarial, prolonged interrogations (Vrij, 2015 ). Interrogations are implicated in false confessions (Gudjonsson, 2003 ); therefore, evaluating the efficacy of lie detection techniques used by criminal justice practitioners is vital. Historically, Australian police interviewing included observation of nonverbal behaviour to detect lies; adopted from the U.S., this method is termed the Behavioural Analysis Interview (BAI) (Adam & Van Golde, 2020 ). The BAI is the initial interviewing step encompassed in the interrogation method known as the Reid Technique, a global investigative practice particularly favoured by Western nations and used by hundreds of thousands of investigators (Gudjonsson, 2003 ; https://reid.com/ , Street, 2023 ). As explained by Street ( 2023 ), It (the BAI) encourages the interviewer to focus on the nonverbal behaviours of the sender that are produced in response to 15 behaviour-provoking questions that assess the suspect’s knowledge, suspicions of who the true culprit is, and who might have the motive to commit the crime. Truth-tellers ought to appear relaxed and engaged, while liars ought to appear frozen, withdrawn, and avoid eye contact. The idea is that truth-tellers will want to aid the investigation and offer speculation about who committed the crime while liars will try to avoid unsubstantiated conjecture so that they do not incriminate themselves. Those who endorse the BAI suggest it can achieve detection rates of 80% accuracy. (p. 123) Concerningly, empirical studies have shown that the specific nonverbal behaviours, such as breaking eye contact and fidgeting, identified by the Reid Technique as signifying deception do not reliably accompany lying (Street, 2023 ; Vrij et al., 2006 ; Vrij, 2019 ). In their seminal meta-analysis (Bond et al., 2015 ), DePaulo et al. ( 2003 ) combined results involving 1338 assessments of 158 verbal and nonverbal behavioural deception cues, finding nonverbal cues were either weak, unreliable, or non-existent. The meta-analysis revealed no relationship between gaze aversion and lying (DePaulo et al., 2003 ). While it was found that liars can seem more tense and their stories can be less consistent than truth-tellers, DePaulo et al. ( 2003 ) highlight that innocent persons can also exhibit these behaviours. Bond and DePaulo ( 2006 ) combined the results from every known lie detection study, 206 studies with 24,483 accuracy judgements, to assess the percentage accuracy for truthful statements and lies. The average accuracy percentage for untrained, unaided people was 54%, with people being more accurate for truths (61%) than for lies (47%) (Bond & DePaulo, 2006 ). Reid Technique proponents claim that training will enhance lie detection accuracy (i.e., over 80% accuracy – Street, 2023 ). However, studies suggest that Reid technique training may only enhance lie detection ability confidence, not accuracy (Kassin & Fong, 1999 ; Meissner et al., 2002). Historically, Australian officers used the Reid Technique, and while it should not have been used for decades due to legislation barring many of the technique’s tactics, indicators are that lie detection via behaviour analysis remains part of the interview process (Adam & Van Golde, 2020 ). Australian police lie detection In the 1990s, Queensland police, followed by other Australian states and territories, transitioned from the Reid Technique to the U.K.-developed PEACE model of interviewing that does not involve behavioural-based lie detection (Adam & Van Golde, 2020 ). For over 30 years, Australian policing standards, requirements, and practices have evolved to encourage higher education for recruits and the implementation of evidence-based practices (Lanyon, 2007 ; Wimshurst & Ransley, 2007 ). There has been exponential growth in Australian criminology student numbers since the 1990s (Burns et al., 2022 ), perhaps partially due to higher education desirability for police recruits. Criminology primarily aims to scrutinise criminal justice systems and practices to expose biases and inequality (Howes et al., 2023 ). However, a recent scoping review revealed that neoliberal reforms were implicated in educators focusing more on producing “job-ready graduates” and less on social critique and inequalities (Burns et al., 2022 , p. 6). Australian criminology educators may need to enhance critical analysis of police practices, as a study with Queensland police (Hill & Moston, 2011 ) indicated that eradicating interviewing procedures from the Reid Technique may not have occurred (Adam & Van Golde, 2020 ). Hill and Moston ( 2011 ) investigated 2 769 Queensland police officers’ opinions about interviewing training. The study’s results revealed the officers’ beliefs about lie detection methods. Most officers stated they could detect deceit, and their favoured lie detection method involved observing the suspect’s nonverbal behaviour. Hill and Moston ( 2011 ) state that 88.1% of officers and 95% of detectives believed they could detect lies, and using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies (67.9%) was preferred over available evidence (63.2%) and verbal behaviour (59.7%). Queensland police’s use of nonverbal behaviour to detect deceit may be due to outdated training; however, this seems unlikely as the Reid Technique had not been taught to Queensland police for two decades before this study. Interestingly, it seems the Reid Technique endorses widespread myths about the likely behaviour of liars (King & Dunn, 2010 ; Masip, 2012). Therefore, Queensland officers may have been using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies because this is how they determined deceit before entering the force. Research has indicated that many people worldwide believe there are nonverbal ‘tells’ that indicate deception (The Global Deception Research Team, 2006 ). Lie detection methods, accuracy and bias In a world first, the Global Deception Research Team (GDRT) (2006) investigated cross-cultural lie detection cues by performing two studies: open-ended questions in the first study that led to the developing of a 10-item questionnaire used in the second, with participants from 75 countries. The most popular behavioural cue reported in both studies was gaze aversion. In study one, 63.66% of the 2,320 participants stated liars avoid eye contact, and in study two, 71.5% of the 2,520 participants noted the same (GDRT, 2006). Yet studies do not support the contention that liars avert their gaze more (DePaulo et al., 2003 ), with some research showing that liars avert their gaze less than usual and other studies showing no difference in gaze behaviour between truth-tellers and liars (Mann et al., 2012 ). The GDRT (2006) cross-cultural popularity of gaze aversion as a lie detection cue is unexpected as there are cross-cultural differences in the meaning of gaze behaviour. For example, in Australia, gaze meaning can differ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. A Queensland Health report ( Communicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - Cultural Capability Team, 2015) highlights this, stating, In Western society averting gaze can be viewed as being dishonest, rude, or showing lack of interest. Some (but not all) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may, therefore, be uncomfortable with direct eye contact, especially if unfamiliar. To make direct eye contact can be viewed as being rude, disrespectful, or even aggressive. To convey polite respect, the appropriate approach would be to avert or lower your eyes in conversation. (pp. 1–2) Therefore, if Australian law enforcers use gaze aversion to detect deceit with Indigenous Australian suspects or those from other cultures, such as those from East Asia, whereby lowering one’s eyes during conversations is considered respectful (Uono & Hietanen, 2015 ), mistakes in attributing guilt are possible. Similarly, misinterpretations are likely if police use gaze aversion to detect lies with someone unlikely to maintain eye contact for other reasons, such as neurodivergence (Lim et al., 2022 a) or mental health issues (Lim et al., 2022 b). Further, if nonverbal behaviour, in general, is used to detect lies, mistakes are likely as there are no nonverbal ‘tells’ that reliably predict lying (Denault et al., 2020 ). One of the most popular and precarious lie-detection cues is nervous-type behaviour (Vrij & Fisher, 2020 ). The second most popular lie detection cue found by the GDRT (2006) was nervousness in the first study and nervous-type behaviours in the second (nervousness was not an option in the second study), with posture shifting (65.2%) closely followed by self-touching (64.8%). Lie detection methods based on nervous-type behaviours/stress reactions have been used for thousands of years (Münsterberg, 1933; Trovillo, 1939 ) and are the basis of the polygraph test (National Research Council [NRC], 2003; Synnott et al., 2015 ). However, while some liars may feel nervous or stressed, others may not (Freckelton, 2004 ; Levine, 2014). Further, if suspected of a crime, many innocent people may be extremely nervous and stressed due to the false accusation (Faigman et al., 2003 ; Iacono, 2008 ), likely from fear of what will happen if the police do not believe them (Vrij & Fisher, 2020 ). This is particularly pertinent for minoritised groups distrustful or fearful of police and authorities due to stigmatisation, bias, and or past experiences (Bradford et al., 2022 ; McKernan & Weber, 2016 ; Miles-Johnson, 2015 ; Sivasubramaniam & Goodman-Delahunty, 2008 ). The popular lie detection cues reported by the GDRT (2006) are the same cues Street ( 2023 ) states are used in the Reid Technique’s Behavioural Analysis Interview. People’s preferred lie-detection cues (i.e., nonverbal behaviour) may explain why, when tested, people’s lie-detection abilities are often little above what would be expected by chance (Bogaard et al., 2016 ; Bond & DePaulo, 2006 , 2008; Hartwig & Bond, 2011 ; Solbu & Frank, 2019 ; Vrij, 2015 ). Decades of research have revealed that nonverbal behaviour observation is a fallible lie detection method, however, global research has shown that both police and the general public often assume they can accurately detect lies (Bogaard et al., 2016 ; Bond et al., 2015 ; Brennen & Magnussen, 2023; Delmas et al., 2019 ; Granhag et al., 2015 ; Sternglanz et al., 2019 ; The Global Deception Team, 2006; Vrij & Fisher, 2020 ). O’Sullivan et al. (2009) argued that some police professionals are significantly more proficient lie detectors than lay people when assessing high-stakes lies (i.e., lies with severe consequences if uncovered) and that research findings of low efficacy are due to design shortcomings (e.g., studies with low ecological validity). However, Sullivan et al. (2009, p. 530) also state, “There is little argument that there are no universal deception clues, that is, behaviours that always indicate that an individual is lying”. Other researchers have also found that some forms of training can enhance accuracy; notably, one of the recommended steps to improve accuracy is to address erroneous beliefs about liars’ likely behaviour (McGlone & Knapp, 2019 ). Therefore, researchers seem to agree that using stereotypical nonverbal cues such as gaze aversion or nervous-type behaviours to detect lies is a fallible method. False beliefs about lie detection methods should be exposed and corrected for those entering and working in Australian law enforcement. A recent review of required textbooks for students enrolled in criminal-justice-focused undergraduate degrees in Queensland revealed that little lie-detection information is provided to students, including the fallibility of common lie-detection techniques (Blinded, 2022 ). Thus, if students enter higher-education institutions with false beliefs about lie detection, the education they receive may not correct these beliefs. However, there are a paucity of studies investigating what Australian criminal justice students think about their ability to detect lies or their preferred lie-detection methods. It is unknown if future Australian criminal justice practitioners hold false beliefs about lying. Therefore, this study recruited Australian undergraduate students interested in a career in the Australian criminal justice system from a Queensland-based university to explore their opinions about their lie detection abilities, their methods to detect lies, and their thoughts on cross-cultural lie detection. Method Research Design The study adopted a mixed methods approach, using an online survey to collect data. The survey instruments consisted of demographic, closed, and open-ended, free-text questions to enable both quantitative and qualitative analysis of responses. Participants could save and complete their survey responses later to optimise response rates and reduce participant burden. Quantitative responses were analysed statistically, while qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). This study was approved by the (Blinded) Human Ethics Research Committee, approval number: 0000024109. All participants provided informed consent. Participants Sixty participants were recruited via the official (Blinded) University social media platforms, and flyers were placed at two campuses (Blinded and Blinded). Students were invited to share the flyer on their social media pages. The recruitment flyer targeted those interested in a career in the Australian criminal justice system. However, there were no restrictions, and anyone could complete the survey (i.e., students from other disciplines and non-students). Materials The Qualtrics platform used for this online survey included demographic questions, tick-a-box responses to closed questions and free-text responses to the open-ended questions. Procedure Participants were directed to the Qualtrics survey via a link and scan code on the flyer. The survey commenced with demographic questions and questions related to study year level and intent to work in the Australian criminal justice system. The first question was, Do you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you? (yes or no tick-a-box response). If someone stated yes, the next, free-text response question was, Describe how you can tell when someone is lying to you . Following this participants were asked, Do you think it is harder to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying? (yes, no or sometimes tick-a-box response). If people responded yes or sometimes, they were directed to the question, Why do you think it would, or might, be harder for people from different cultural backgrounds to tell if someone was lying? If someone stated no, to the first question, Do you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you? they were directed to the question, Do you think it is harder to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying? (yes, no or sometimes tick-a-box response). If someone stated no, they were directed to the end of the questionnaire. If people responded yes or sometimes, they were directed to the question, Why do you think it would, or might, be harder for people from different cultural backgrounds to tell if someone was lying? No word limit was applied to the free-text responses, and participants were encouraged to include detailed answers. Results Sixty participants completed the survey, 47 females and 13 males. The youngest participant was 17, and the oldest was 57 ( M = 30.28, SD = 11.84). Fifty-six participants were current students, and many were studying a criminal-justice-focused degree, with 12 studying law and 20 studying a dual criminology and psychology degree. Sixty participants responded to the questions: Do you intend on working in the Australian criminal justice system , and Do you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you? A Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed p = .009) showed a significant association between intent to work in the criminal justice system and beliefs about lie detection ability. Twenty-nine participants intended to work in the Australian criminal justice system; 28 stated they could usually tell when someone was lying to them, and only one stated they could not. Of the 24 participants who were undecided about a career in the criminal justice system, 18 said they could usually tell when someone was lying to them, and six stated they could not. Seven participants stated they do not intend to work in the criminal justice system, with four saying they can usually tell when someone is lying and three stating they could not. The cohort most confident in their lie detection abilities were students intending to work in the Australian criminal justice system. A Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed p = .007) showed a significant association between year level and whether participants could usually tell when someone was lying. Twenty-five first-year students completed the survey, and 17 responded yes to the question, Do you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you? and eight said no. In contrast, all the second ( N = 12) and third-year students ( N = 16) stated that they can usually tell when someone is lying to them. Only one fourth-year student completed the survey, and this person responded that they could usually tell when someone was lying. Two postgraduate students completed the survey; one answered yes, they could usually tell when someone was lying, and the other answered no. Fifty-five participants responded to the question, Do you think it is more difficult to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying? The most popular response was sometimes (52.7%), with 23.6% of people stating yes and the same percentage stating no (23.6%). Qualitative Findings Forty-five participants responded to the question, Describe how you can tell when someone is lying to you. This section will present two overarching themes supported by direct participant quotations. The first theme explores how participants emphasise their skills and abilities to detect lies, particularly regarding nonverbal communication and identifying physical indicators of lying. The second theme illuminates participants’ perceptions of how cultural differences can pose barriers that disrupt their trusted deception-detecting techniques. Participants in this different cultural context struggled to interpret unfamiliar cues and gestures, leading to potential inaccuracies in assessing deception. The analytic findings are discussed below. Theme 1 Individualised Strategies for Detecting Lies Participants in this study demonstrated a multifaceted approach to detecting lies, marked by a firm reliance on nonverbal cues, particularly eye contact and other involuntary physical indicators. These cues were considered essential in the participants’ efforts to uncover deceit. Changes in demeanour and gesture were readily identified as clear ‘tells’ of lying, highlighting the perception of the significance of body language in the participants’ deception detection process. Looking away or to the side the moment they lie or cannot look you in the eye at all. Body language does not match what they’re saying […] [P54] I can usually tell by their non-verbal communication. I find there is usually a lack of eye contact and their body language shifts. They might fidget or excessively or stop fidgeting and their facial expressions may not match what they are saying.[P67] Verbal indicators, while acknowledged, were not granted the same perceived importance as nonverbal cues, although the content of the conversation and its delivery in terms of narrative style, tone, pitch, and pace were identified by some participants as indicators of lying. Interestingly, participants reported that giving both too much and too little detail were indicators of lying, as were an inconsistent or overly consistent story. If a story altered too much during retellings, participants perceived this as a definite indicator of deceit. However, if the story remained consistent, this was also viewed as suspicious by participants. Participants did not explain what constituents of a recounting of an event were necessary for a story to be judged as truthful. I’ve found people can either be very vague with statements when lying, or they can be incredibly detailed to the point of seeming rehearsed. [P26] Central to many participants’ strategies was an inherent trust in their skills and capabilities for lie detection. Many of them used self-identified and self-defined methods, including specific types of questioning, strategic use of silence, and active listening. However, much of this relied on assumed knowledge and false beliefs to assess the truthfulness of information provided by others. This self-reliance appeared to be a cornerstone of the individual approaches, although it is notable that participants appeared to depend on everyday assumptions and unsubstantiated beliefs about the behaviour of liars and lying. The combination of all these factors give me a good insight into how truthful people are with me. […] My approach is never aggressive, but rather an easy free flowing conversation where all parties have an equal opportunity to ask questions, and I prefer to ask more open questions so that I can listen more rather than talk. [P15] These preconceived notions were integrated uncritically into their individual detection strategies. Confidence in their ability to recognise lies was a salient sentiment among participants, which implied a level of assurance that may influence their judgments. I can tell someone is lying, I look at the way they are talking to me. See what they are doing with their hands eg, are they moving them a lot. I look at their eyes to see if they can look at me straight or they are easily distracted. Also focus on how they talking, ask them questions about the subject they are talking about. [P41] A minority of participants in the study demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of lie detection that extended beyond a simplistic reliance on body language. These individuals acknowledged the complexity of lying and highlighted several elements that influence the accuracy of their judgments. They recognised that lie detection is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour, emphasising the importance of individual differences in how people express deception. Additionally, the level of familiarity with the person being assessed was noted as a valuable factor in detection, suggesting that participants supposed that closer relationships and increased familiarity might offer some advantage in detecting deceit. It depends on how well I know the person. If it is one of my siblings, then yes, I can usually tell when they are lying to me. How - I don’t really know; its intuitive, probably from years of knowing them. If its someone I do not know very well, I have no idea if they are lying to me or not. [P21] The role of personality in lie detection was another dimension considered by a minority of participants, suggesting that some individuals may be naturally more skilled in telling lies than others. Participants also highlighted the significance of prior knowledge of the subject and additional contextual information in aiding their lie-detection efforts, reinforcing the idea that a multifaceted approach that acknowledges various situational factors is crucial for accurately assessing truthfulness. The majority of participants surveyed did not express these insights. Depends on the knowledge I have as to the facts prior to the questioning. [P47] This theme reflects that participants in this study placed their confidence in a diverse set of strategies for detecting lies, placing substantial emphasis on nonverbal cues, individualised techniques, and self-confidence in their ability to detect deception. The over-reliance on false beliefs and preconceptions about lying reflects the complex factors contributing to participants’ perceptions of their approaches to lie detection. Theme 2 Cultural Disruptions and the Complexities of Lie Detection Participants in this study discussed that disruptions arising from cultural differences frequently compromised their abilities and skills to detect lies. These disruptions posed a notable challenge primarily centred around their nonverbal communication (NVC) interpretation. Most participants frequently mentioned that their unfamiliarity with various cultural norms related to NVC significantly hindered their lie detection efforts. If you’re not familiar with the culture the body language cues would potentially be different to that of a culture you know well. [P30] Of particular concern was the differing cultural significance of eye contact, where making eye contact could signify disrespect in some cultures. In contrast, lack of eye contact was viewed as a sign of reverence in others. These culturally contingent variations in the meaning of eye contact were perceived as particularly problematic, introducing an element of uncertainty and error in their lie detection skills. Inconsistent eye contact (too much or not enough) usually means someone is hiding something or trying to convince me. It is harder to tell in other cultures where eye contact is valued differently i.e., seen as a challenge and disrespectful in some Indigenous communities. [P65] These NVC differences restricted the effective use of individualised lie detection strategies, especially when encountering individuals from unfamiliar cultures with norms that diverged from Western conventions. These cultural complexities disrupted relied-upon techniques used by participants to pursue accurate lie detection. A prominent issue described frequently by participants was the unreliability of their lie-detection techniques in cross-cultural encounters. Their customary methods and strategies, which they felt they had refined in their own cultural contexts often proved ineffective when applied to individuals from different cultural backgrounds. This unreliability stemmed from the pronounced differences in cultural norms and values associated with deception. Such disparities impeded the participants’ ability to rely on their typical approaches, as their established techniques did not align with the diverse cultural behaviours and cues they encountered. Because people from different cultural backgrounds have certain customs to show respect to others that overlap with the indicators I look for that someone is lying. In some cultures, eye contact is used differently depending on the level of respect an individual has for someone else so therefore cannot be used as an indicator if that person is lying. It makes it harder for me to tell. [P23] Participants recognised that cultural differences relating to language and linguistic expression significantly impacted their ability to detect lies. Language was granted a heightened prominence in this context in contrast to the previous theme, with participants reporting that these disparities often obscured indicators of deception. They highlighted that variations in communication styles, intonation, vocalisation, and speech pace could serve as strategy disruptors, rendering detecting deceit more challenging. These distinctions in conversational norms across cultures appeared to impede deception identification, as participants suggested that lies could be adeptly concealed within these unfamiliar speech patterns. People with different cultures may say things or mean things in a different context, therefore it becomes harder to understand whether the person is lying or telling the truth. [P36] This study’s participants noted that cultural and religious dress could further complicate their lie detection processes. This clothing had the potential to conceal important cues, such as gestures and other physical indicators of deception, that are typically relied upon by participants when attempting to detect lies. The barriers to observing these kinds of cues, along with the masking of signals of comfort and discomfort, which may be prominent when lying, hindered participants’ abilities to discern truth from lies. For participants, linguistic and clothing disparities can obscure the recognition of deception and challenge the perceived effectiveness of their established lie-detection strategies. If someone has head coverings, they maybe not show their uncomfortableness. Also, they may be unable to look at you directly if their face is covered. It makes it difficult. [P55] In the context of lie detection, participants in this study recognised that cultural norms and values related specifically to deception presented significant challenges. Participants were concerned that these cultural variations could give rise to misunderstandings and false accusations of lying because various cultural differences compromised the accuracy of their lie-detection efforts. Participants described how these normative differences and diverse cultural backgrounds could lead to inaccurate perceptions of lies and truths. Participants in the current study emphasised that these norm differences across cultures could foster misunderstandings and misconceptions not present when assessing the truthfulness of a person from a similar cultural background to themselves. A lack of shared understanding and a limited grasp of contextual cues made it difficult for participants to accurately interpret the veracity of statements and behaviours. Every culture has their own beliefs so I might think they are in a uncomfortable position because they’re lying but really they just have culture differences. [P41] Different cultures have different ways of showing respect and communicating and because of these differences behaviour may be misinterpreted [P33] Some participants in this study conveyed a clear understanding of how cultural background plays a pivotal role in shaping lying behaviour. They reported that cultural norms and values, deeply ingrained in different societies, can significantly influence the necessity and proficiency of lying within those contexts. Participants explained that, in some cultures, lying might be deemed necessary for reasons of safety, self-protection, and political corruption. In such settings, individuals may become well-versed in the art of deception, becoming more accomplished liars by necessity. This observation was echoed by multiple participants, who proposed that this cultural requirement to lie was a key factor contributing to the difficulties of cross-cultural lie detection. Individuals from these backgrounds were perceived by participants as more adept at concealing deception, adding a challenge for their lie detecting techniques. Cultural norms impact the understanding of facts, how those are conveyed and the consequences. Societal structure impacts on the views people have of right and wrong and how they have to behave in their culture to justify their actions. [P47] Additionally, participants referred to the influence of differing cultural rules and beliefs about lying, which affected how people from various cultures engage in deception. These cultural norms encompassed a wide range of factors, including the acceptability of lying to avoid culturally taboo topics, the cultural tolerance for white lies, and religious influences that may prohibit any form of deception. Participants also noted that some individuals from certain cultural backgrounds might lie intentionally to align with Western norms and societal expectations. This variation in cultural attitudes towards lying and its consequences further complicated the task of lie detection for these participants, as individuals’ behaviours were shaped by their cultural contexts. It will be harder to tell if people from different cultural backgrounds are lying due to the beliefs in that culture. Example: they might be lying about something they think is right in their culture but is not right in your culture. Therefore, they might not show the signs of lying. [P42] This theme highlights participants’ perceived impact of cultural variations on lying behaviours and how these variations present unique challenges for their established strategies and lie detection techniques. Participants in the study acknowledged the importance of recognising that cultural differences may be misinterpreted as attempts at deception. Discussion This study assessed university students’ beliefs about their lie detection abilities, their methods to detect lies and their thoughts on cross-cultural lie detection. Qualitative and quantitative analyses illustrate that the study participants believed they could accurately detect deception, particularly post-first-year participants and those intent on a career in the criminal justice system. There was a significant association between students’ career aspirations and their beliefs about their lie-detection ability; 96.6% of participants intent on a career in the Australian criminal justice system stated they could usually tell when someone was lying. The data showed a linear downward trend; beliefs about lie detection ability were less for those uncertain of a career in the criminal justice system (75% stating they could usually detect lies) and lessened further for participants not intent on a criminal justice career (57.1% responded they could usually detect lies). There was also a significant association between year level and beliefs about lie detection ability; 100% of second to fourth-year participants stated they could detect lies compared to 68% of first-year participants. Caution should be applied to these findings due to low participant numbers. However, the implications of the study’s findings for future Australian criminal justice practitioners are substantial, particularly if practitioners have unwarranted confidence in their lie-detection abilities. Ability Overconfidence The findings from this study illuminate the intricate strategies employed by participants in their pursuit of lie detection, offering valuable insights into future Australian criminal justice practitioners’ beliefs about lie detection. The participants strongly emphasised nonverbal cues, particularly eye contact, gaze aversion, and other involuntary physical indicators, underscoring the perceived significance of body language in their deception detection process. These findings are in line with research highlighting the fallacious role of nonverbal communication in assessing truthfulness (Brennen & Magnussen, 2020 ; Vriji, 2019) and have significant implications for future criminal justice practitioners in Australia, who are likely entering their careers with a mistaken belief about the reliability of their judgment and strategies when detecting deception. Participants reported a reliance on their strategies to identify lies and differentiate liars from truth-tellers. Central to many participants’ strategies was a self-confident trust in their skills for lie detection. These self-identified methods, including specific questioning style and strategic use of silence, were described by participants as reliable techniques to detect deception. However, the reliance on assumed knowledge and unsubstantiated beliefs about the behaviour of liars raises concerns about the potential influence of preconceived notions on their judgments (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004 ). A notable finding is the participants’ high confidence in their ability to recognise lies, often integrating assumptions and partialities into their detection strategies. The faith placed by participants in these self-fashioned techniques and strategies raises questions about future criminal justice professionals’ potential overconfidence biases and highlights the need for revised training and education to dispel myths about the accuracy of lie detection (Blinded, 2022 ). A recent review of lie detection information provided to Queensland University criminal justice students showed the topic is largely ignored (Blinded, 2022 ). However, all post-first-year students who completed the survey believed they could usually tell when someone was lying, a curious finding. It is important to note that a minority of participants demonstrated a more nuanced understanding, acknowledging the complexity of lie detection and individual differences in NVC. Further, some participants recognised the importance of context and were wary of crediting individual skill in deception detection, an accurate assumption (Brennen & Magnussen, 2020 ). However, the over-reliance on false beliefs and preconceptions about lying, NVC, and lie detection is highly concerning, given the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system and the cultural differences in behavioural cues. Unravelling Cultural Differences While participants acknowledged that cultural differences influence NVC, particularly eye contact and gaze aversion, and recognised that the cultural significance of this differed, they did not assimilate these views into their self-styled lie detection strategies. Cross-cultural misunderstandings in interpreting body language and eye contact align with research emphasising the significance of cultural norms in shaping these behaviours (Matsumoto, 1990). The challenge of adapting their established lie detection strategies to unfamiliar cultural contexts is consistent with the notion that context-specific cues significantly influence the accuracy of deception judgements (Bond & DePaulo, 2006 ). The findings from the current study indicate that participants who were unable to rely on their regularly used strategies for detecting lies reported that they would struggle to discern lies from truth. For criminal justice practitioners who adhere to these rigid notions of detecting deception, the consequences for innocent suspects may be severe and lead to incorrect charges by the police and miscarriages of justice by the courts in Australia. Implications of Fallacious Beliefs about Lie Detection Global research has shown that many people, including Australian law enforcers (Hill & Moston, 2011 ), believe they can detect lies via nonverbal behaviour (Denault et al., 2020 ; GDRT, 2006). However, large-scale meta-analyses have shown that people are poor lie detectors (Bond et al., 2006), and the relationship between specific nonverbal behaviours and deception is either weak, unreliable, or non-existent (DePaulo et al., 2003 ). The popularity of using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies likely explains poor lie detection ability. Thus, criminal justice practitioners should be informed of two facts – they are likely not accurate lie detectors, and no known nonverbal behaviours are specific to deception. Australian criminal justice system practitioners may not be adequately educated on the unreliability of the Reid Technique or myths about the behaviour exhibited when an individual is lying (Blinded, 2022 ). Practitioners relying solely on standardised interrogation and lie detection techniques developed within a Western cultural framework will likely encounter challenges. Misinterpretations of nonverbal cues, such as body language and eye contact, could lead to inaccurate judgments and potential biases against individuals whose cultural norms differ from Anglo-Saxon (Castillo & Mallard, 2012 ). This may be the case with Indigenous Australians, who attach different cultural significance to NVC, particularly eye contact, where gaze aversion is respectful rather than deceptive (Cultural Capability Team, 2015). This, along with colonial cultural biases and negative stereotypes regarding Indigenous Australians, is likely to lead to serious issues related to justice, impartiality, and fairness when an Indigenous individual comes into contact with the Australian criminal justice system (Cuneen, 2020 ). Further, if using gaze aversion to detect lies, misinterpretations are possible with neurodivergent suspects and those with specific mental health issues, who typically display lessened eye contact (Lim et al., 2022 a; Lim et al., 2022 b). It is crucial that Australian criminal justice practitioners recognise the limitations of universal interrogation and lie detection methods, particularly in a multicultural society like Australia, and be open to adapting their approaches to account for cultural variations. The findings from this study emphasise the need for comprehensive education and training that challenges assumptions and promotes a nuanced understanding of the complexities inherent in accurately discerning deception. Acknowledging that lying might be perceived as culturally necessary for safety or self-protection raises concerns about potential misjudgements. Criminal justice practitioners must recognise that individuals from specific cultural backgrounds may not exhibit deception in ways consistent with Western expectations (Cuneen, 2020 ), and this must be comprehensively addressed in higher education forums and during law enforcement training. False assumptions about the adeptness of individuals from specific cultures at lying may contribute to biased judgments, reinforcing stereotypes and potentially leading to unjust outcomes. Limitations The study’s main limitation was the sample size of sixty participants, particularly in terms of the quantitative portion of the study. The small sample size limits the generalisability of the results to other populations of criminal justice students, meaning further research is needed across other Australian states and territories. The statistical power of the results are reduced due to the sample size; however, a Fisher’s exact test was utilised to minimise the chance of type I and type II errors as is the most appropriate nonparametric test for small sample sizes. The sample size was not considered a limitation for the qualitative part of the study, as Braun and Clarke ( 2013 ) recommend a sample size of 50–100 participants for a medium-scale qualitative study conducted via an online survey. Conclusion Participants in this study acknowledged the difficulty of cross-cultural lie detection due to differing nonverbal behaviour norms with gaze aversion. However, despite this, the findings of this study support the results of others (GDRT, 2006), with participants displaying a belief in the utility of nonverbal behaviour, such as gaze aversion and signs of nervousness, as a lie detection method. Gaze aversion can occur due to cultural, psychological and neurological factors (Lim et al., 2022 a; Lim et al., 2022 b), and it is not unreasonable to expect anyone to feel, and subsequently seem, nervous if accused of a crime. This is likely markedly more so for those who fear the police and or do not expect they will be believed. Despite a recent review showing lie detection is mostly unaddressed at Queensland universities, participants intent on a career in the Australian criminal justice system and those in their second to fourth year of study were the most confident in their lie detection ability. Future research could include other Australian universities and larger participant cohorts. In summary, this study’s findings are concerning and indicate a need for universities to address the topic of lie detection for criminal justice students. Declarations The authors have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. No funding was provided for this research. This study was approved by the (Blinded) Human Ethics Research Committee, approval number: 0000024109. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent. Author Contribution Both authors contributed substantially to the study's conception, design, and analysis. They also contributed to the draft and final version of the research article and agreed to the final version. Both authors agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work. Data Availability Data that support the findings of this study have been deposited into the CQUniversity data repository: Wilcoxson, Rebecca (2023). Criminal justice students' beliefs about lie detection. CQUniversity. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25946/24734031.v1 References Adam, L. & van Golde, C. (2020). Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, 45 (1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1037969X19874415. Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A. & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Strong, but wrong: Lay people’s and police officers’ beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PLoS ONE, 11 (6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156615 . Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 Bond, C. F., Levine, T, R. & Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in non-verbal lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 37–58). John Wiley & Sons. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., Murphy, K., & Sargeant, E. (2022). The space between: Trustworthiness and trust in the police among three immigrant groups in Australia. Journal of Trust Research, 12 (2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2155659 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners . Sage. Brennen T, Magnussen S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 613410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410 Burns, K. H., Loney-Howes, R., Wood, M. A., & Iliadis, M. (2022). Australian and Aotearoa scholarship of teaching and learning in criminology: A scoping review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, ahead-of -print(ahead-of-print ), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2163264 Castillo, P. A., & Mallard, D. (2012). Preventing cross-cultural bias in deception judgments: The role of expectancies about nonverbal behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (6), 967–978. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111415672 Castillo, P., Tyson, G., & Mallard, D. (2014). An investigation of accuracy and bias in cross-cultural lie detection. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 10 (1), 66–82. https://cqu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/61CQU_INST/669qn3/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1708505758 Cuneen, C. (2020). Conflict, Politics and Crime: Aboriginal Communities and the Police . Routledge. Delmas, H., Elissalde, B., Rochat, N., Demarchi, S., Tijus, C., & Urdapilleta, I. (2019). Policemen’s and civilians’ beliefs about facial cues of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43 (1), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0285-4 Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., Sporer, S. L., Rioux-Turcotte, J., Jarry, J., Walsh, D., Otgaar, H., Viziteu, A., Talwar, V., Keatley, D. A., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Townson, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patterson, M. L., … Boivin, R. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica (Madrid, España), 30 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a9 DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 74–118. https://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72995648 Faigman, D. L., Fienberg, S. E. & Stern, P. C. (2003). The limits of the polygraph. Issues in Science and Technology, 20 (1), 40–46. https://issues.org/faigman/ . Freckelton, I. (2004). The closing of the coffin on forensic polygraph evidence for Australia: Mallard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 296. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law , 11 (2), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.359 . Granhag, P., Vrij, A. & Verschuere, B. (Eds). (2015). Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches . Wiley-Blackwell. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: New York.: Wiley A handbook. Hartwig, M. & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (4), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589 . Hill, J., & Moston, S. (2011). Police perceptions of investigative interviewing: Training needs and operational practices in Australia. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13 (2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636641111134314 . Howes, L. M., Julian, R., Oosthuizen, T., Reid, C. A., Cashman, K., & White, R. (2023). Redrawing the boundaries of criminology: Increasing forensic literacy by including forensic studies in the curriculum. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 34 (2), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2096249 Iacono, W. G. (2008). Effective policing: Understanding how polygraph tests work and are used. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35 (10), 1295–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321529 . Kassin, S. M. (2013). A critical appraisal of modern police interrogations (pp. 207–228). In T. Williamson (Ed.). Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation . Willan Publishing. https://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancisbooks_9781843926337 Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23 (5), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022330011811 Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5 (2), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x King, W. R. & Dunn, T. M. (2010). Detecting deception in field settings. Policing, 33 (2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511011044902 . Lanyon, I. J. (2007). Police managers. In J. P. Casey & M. Mitchell (Eds.), Police leadership and management (pp. 107–123). Leichhardt: Federation Press. Lim, A., Young, R. L., & Brewer, N. (2022). Autistic adults may be erroneously perceived as deceptive and lacking credibility. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52 (2), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4 Lim, A., Young, R. L., & Brewer, N. (2022). Atypical behaviours found in some mental health conditions negatively affect judgments of deception and credibility. Australian Journal of Psychology, 74 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2067486 Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Warmelink, L., & Forrester, D. (2012). Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36 (3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y Masip, J., Barba, A., & Herrero, C. (2012). Behaviour Analysis Interview and common sense: A study with novice and experienced officers. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 19 (1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2010.543402 McGlone M. S. & Knapp M. L. (2019). Historical perspectives on the study of lying and deception. In Docan-Morgan T. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 3–28). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_1 . McKernan, H., & Weber, L. (2016). Vietnamese Australians’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of police. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49 (1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048658145543 Meissner, A. (2002). “He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26 (5), 469–480. https://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/hes-guilty-investigator-bias-judgments-truth/docview/204161863/se-2?accountid=10016 Miles-Johnson, T. (2015). "They don't identify with us": Perceptions of police by Australian transgender people. The International Journal of Transgenderism, 16 (3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2015.1080647 Münsterberg, H. (1908/1933). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime . Doubleday, Page. National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420 . O'Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33 (6), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4 Sivasubramaniam, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). Ethnicity and trust: Perceptions of police bias. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 10 (4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2008.10.4.094 Solbu A. & Frank M. G. (2019). Lie catchers: Evolution and development of deception in modern times. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 41–66). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_3 . Sternglanz, R. W., Morris, W. L., Morrow, M. & Braverman, J. (2019). A review of meta-analyses about deception detection. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 303–326). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_16 . Street, C. N. H. (2023). An introduction to the science of deception and lie detection . Routledge. Synnott, J., Dietzel, D. & Ioannou, M. (2015). A review of the polygraph: History, methodology and current status. Crime Psychology Review, 1 (1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080 . The Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 (1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295 . The Queensland Health Cultural Capability Team (2015). Communicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people . Retrieved March 5, 2021. https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/151923/communicating.pdf Trovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 29 (6), 848–881. https://doi.org/10.2307/1136489 Uono, S., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). Eye contact perception in the West and East: a cross-cultural study. PloS One, 10 (2), e0118094–e0118094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118094 Vrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analysing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33 (2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3457 Vrij, A. (2015). Deception detection. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds), APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (pp. 225–244). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14462-008 . Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2020). Unraveling the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 1377–1377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01377 Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3 Blinded. (2022). Wimshurst, K., & Ransley, J. (2007). Police education and the university sector: Contrasting models from the Australian experience. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18 (1), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250601144365 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 05 Aug, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 09 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jul, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Jun, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 18 Jun, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Jun, 2024 First submitted to journal 02 Jun, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4518644","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":321375657,"identity":"d7b16a9e-945d-4a8e-a80b-55d25d035f79","order_by":0,"name":"Rebecca Wilcoxson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Queensland University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rebecca","middleName":"","lastName":"Wilcoxson","suffix":""},{"id":321375658,"identity":"ed7ed79c-bb97-402f-997d-2935b054215e","order_by":1,"name":"Emma L. Turley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The College of Law, Criminology and Justice CQUniversity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emma","middleName":"L.","lastName":"Turley","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-03 01:38:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":59598816,"identity":"e647ff87-2c8a-4753-bc1b-2a32cc4edb37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-03 16:26:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":474641,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4518644/v1/be61fc73-4ce4-435d-b83a-df1ad806089d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Australian Criminal Justice Student’s Beliefs about Lie Detection Methods","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study surveyed Australian criminal-justice-career-focused university students to uncover their perceived lie-detection abilities and the cues they use to detect deceit. Assessing statement veracity can be a core component of a criminal justice practitioner\u0026rsquo;s profession, and using erroneous lie detection methods contributes to wrongful convictions (Denault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Statement veracity is assessed during initial police interviews (Kassin et al., 2013; Messner et al., 2002). Suspects considered truthful in their denials are released, while those deemed to be lying can be subjected to adversarial, prolonged interrogations (Vrij, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Interrogations are implicated in false confessions (Gudjonsson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e); therefore, evaluating the efficacy of lie detection techniques used by criminal justice practitioners is vital. Historically, Australian police interviewing included observation of nonverbal behaviour to detect lies; adopted from the U.S., this method is termed the Behavioural Analysis Interview (BAI) (Adam \u0026amp; Van Golde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The BAI is the initial interviewing step encompassed in the interrogation method known as the Reid Technique, a global investigative practice particularly favoured by Western nations and used by hundreds of thousands of investigators (Gudjonsson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://reid.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://reid.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, Street, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As explained by Street (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e),\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt (the BAI) encourages the interviewer to focus on the nonverbal behaviours of the sender that are produced in response to 15 behaviour-provoking questions that assess the suspect\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, suspicions of who the true culprit is, and who might have the motive to commit the crime. Truth-tellers ought to appear relaxed and engaged, while liars ought to appear frozen, withdrawn, and avoid eye contact. The idea is that truth-tellers will want to aid the investigation and offer speculation about who committed the crime while liars will try to avoid unsubstantiated conjecture so that they do not incriminate themselves. Those who endorse the BAI suggest it can achieve detection rates of 80% accuracy. (p. 123)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerningly, empirical studies have shown that the specific nonverbal behaviours, such as breaking eye contact and fidgeting, identified by the Reid Technique as signifying deception do not reliably accompany lying (Street, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Vrij et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Vrij, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In their seminal meta-analysis (Bond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), DePaulo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) combined results involving 1338 assessments of 158 verbal and nonverbal behavioural deception cues, finding nonverbal cues were either weak, unreliable, or non-existent. The meta-analysis revealed no relationship between gaze aversion and lying (DePaulo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). While it was found that liars can seem more tense and their stories can be less consistent than truth-tellers, DePaulo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that innocent persons can also exhibit these behaviours. Bond and DePaulo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) combined the results from every known lie detection study, 206 studies with 24,483 accuracy judgements, to assess the percentage accuracy for truthful statements and lies. The average accuracy percentage for untrained, unaided people was 54%, with people being more accurate for truths (61%) than for lies (47%) (Bond \u0026amp; DePaulo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReid Technique proponents claim that training will enhance lie detection accuracy (i.e., over 80% accuracy \u0026ndash; Street, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, studies suggest that Reid technique training may only enhance lie detection ability confidence, not accuracy (Kassin \u0026amp; Fong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Meissner et al., 2002). Historically, Australian officers used the Reid Technique, and while it should not have been used for decades due to legislation barring many of the technique\u0026rsquo;s tactics, indicators are that lie detection via behaviour analysis remains part of the interview process (Adam \u0026amp; Van Golde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAustralian police lie detection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the 1990s, Queensland police, followed by other Australian states and territories, transitioned from the Reid Technique to the U.K.-developed PEACE model of interviewing that does not involve behavioural-based lie detection (Adam \u0026amp; Van Golde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For over 30 years, Australian policing standards, requirements, and practices have evolved to encourage higher education for recruits and the implementation of evidence-based practices (Lanyon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Wimshurst \u0026amp; Ransley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). There has been exponential growth in Australian criminology student numbers since the 1990s (Burns et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), perhaps partially due to higher education desirability for police recruits. Criminology primarily aims to scrutinise criminal justice systems and practices to expose biases and inequality (Howes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, a recent scoping review revealed that neoliberal reforms were implicated in educators focusing more on producing \u0026ldquo;job-ready graduates\u0026rdquo; and less on social critique and inequalities (Burns et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, p. 6). Australian criminology educators may need to enhance critical analysis of police practices, as a study with Queensland police (Hill \u0026amp; Moston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that eradicating interviewing procedures from the Reid Technique may not have occurred (Adam \u0026amp; Van Golde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHill and Moston (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) investigated 2 769 Queensland police officers\u0026rsquo; opinions about interviewing training. The study\u0026rsquo;s results revealed the officers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about lie detection methods. Most officers stated they could detect deceit, and their favoured lie detection method involved observing the suspect\u0026rsquo;s nonverbal behaviour. Hill and Moston (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) state that 88.1% of officers and 95% of detectives believed they could detect lies, and using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies (67.9%) was preferred over available evidence (63.2%) and verbal behaviour (59.7%). Queensland police\u0026rsquo;s use of nonverbal behaviour to detect deceit may be due to outdated training; however, this seems unlikely as the Reid Technique had not been taught to Queensland police for two decades before this study. Interestingly, it seems the Reid Technique endorses widespread myths about the likely behaviour of liars (King \u0026amp; Dunn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Masip, 2012). Therefore, Queensland officers may have been using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies because this is how they determined deceit before entering the force. Research has indicated that many people worldwide believe there are nonverbal \u0026lsquo;tells\u0026rsquo; that indicate deception (The Global Deception Research Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLie detection methods, accuracy and bias\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a world first, the Global Deception Research Team (GDRT) (2006) investigated cross-cultural lie detection cues by performing two studies: open-ended questions in the first study that led to the developing of a 10-item questionnaire used in the second, with participants from 75 countries. The most popular behavioural cue reported in both studies was gaze aversion. In study one, 63.66% of the 2,320 participants stated liars avoid eye contact, and in study two, 71.5% of the 2,520 participants noted the same (GDRT, 2006). Yet studies do not support the contention that liars avert their gaze more (DePaulo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), with some research showing that liars avert their gaze \u003cem\u003eless\u003c/em\u003e than usual and other studies showing no difference in gaze behaviour between truth-tellers and liars (Mann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe GDRT (2006) cross-cultural popularity of gaze aversion as a lie detection cue is unexpected as there are cross-cultural differences in the meaning of gaze behaviour. For example, in Australia, gaze meaning can differ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. A Queensland Health report (\u003cem\u003eCommunicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people -\u003c/em\u003e Cultural Capability Team, 2015) highlights this, stating,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Western society averting gaze can be viewed as being dishonest, rude, or showing lack of interest. Some (but not all) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may, therefore, be uncomfortable with direct eye contact, especially if unfamiliar. To make direct eye contact can be viewed as being rude, disrespectful, or even aggressive. To convey polite respect, the appropriate approach would be to avert or lower your eyes in conversation. (pp. 1\u0026ndash;2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, if Australian law enforcers use gaze aversion to detect deceit with Indigenous Australian suspects or those from other cultures, such as those from East Asia, whereby lowering one\u0026rsquo;s eyes during conversations is considered respectful (Uono \u0026amp; Hietanen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), mistakes in attributing guilt are possible. Similarly, misinterpretations are likely if police use gaze aversion to detect lies with someone unlikely to maintain eye contact for other reasons, such as neurodivergence (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003ea) or mental health issues (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003eb). Further, if nonverbal behaviour, in general, is used to detect lies, mistakes are likely as there are no nonverbal \u0026lsquo;tells\u0026rsquo; that reliably predict lying (Denault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). One of the most popular and precarious lie-detection cues is nervous-type behaviour (Vrij \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second most popular lie detection cue found by the GDRT (2006) was nervousness in the first study and nervous-type behaviours in the second (nervousness was not an option in the second study), with posture shifting (65.2%) closely followed by self-touching (64.8%). Lie detection methods based on nervous-type behaviours/stress reactions have been used for thousands of years (M\u0026uuml;nsterberg, 1933; Trovillo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1939\u003c/span\u003e) and are the basis of the polygraph test (National Research Council [NRC], 2003; Synnott et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, while some liars may feel nervous or stressed, others may not (Freckelton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Levine, 2014). Further, if suspected of a crime, many innocent people may be extremely nervous and stressed due to the false accusation (Faigman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Iacono, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), likely from fear of what will happen if the police do not believe them (Vrij \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This is particularly pertinent for minoritised groups distrustful or fearful of police and authorities due to stigmatisation, bias, and or past experiences (Bradford et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; McKernan \u0026amp; Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Miles-Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sivasubramaniam \u0026amp; Goodman-Delahunty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe popular lie detection cues reported by the GDRT (2006) are the same cues Street (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) states are used in the Reid Technique\u0026rsquo;s Behavioural Analysis Interview. People\u0026rsquo;s preferred lie-detection cues (i.e., nonverbal behaviour) may explain why, when tested, people\u0026rsquo;s lie-detection abilities are often little above what would be expected by chance (Bogaard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Bond \u0026amp; DePaulo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, 2008; Hartwig \u0026amp; Bond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Solbu \u0026amp; Frank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Vrij, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Decades of research have revealed that nonverbal behaviour observation is a fallible lie detection method, however, global research has shown that both police and the general public often assume they can accurately detect lies (Bogaard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Bond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Brennen \u0026amp; Magnussen, 2023; Delmas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Granhag et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sternglanz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; The Global Deception Team, 2006; Vrij \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Sullivan et al. (2009) argued that some police professionals are significantly more proficient lie detectors than lay people when assessing high-stakes lies (i.e., lies with severe consequences if uncovered) and that research findings of low efficacy are due to design shortcomings (e.g., studies with low ecological validity). However, Sullivan et al. (2009, p. 530) also state, \u0026ldquo;There is little argument that there are no universal deception clues, that is, behaviours that \u003cb\u003ealways\u003c/b\u003e indicate that an individual is lying\u0026rdquo;. Other researchers have also found that some forms of training can enhance accuracy; notably, one of the recommended steps to improve accuracy is to address erroneous beliefs about liars\u0026rsquo; likely behaviour (McGlone \u0026amp; Knapp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, researchers seem to agree that using stereotypical nonverbal cues such as gaze aversion or nervous-type behaviours to detect lies is a fallible method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFalse beliefs about lie detection methods should be exposed and corrected for those entering and working in Australian law enforcement. A recent review of required textbooks for students enrolled in criminal-justice-focused undergraduate degrees in Queensland revealed that little lie-detection information is provided to students, including the fallibility of common lie-detection techniques (Blinded, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, if students enter higher-education institutions with false beliefs about lie detection, the education they receive may not correct these beliefs. However, there are a paucity of studies investigating what Australian criminal justice students think about their ability to detect lies or their preferred lie-detection methods. It is unknown if future Australian criminal justice practitioners hold false beliefs about lying. Therefore, this study recruited Australian undergraduate students interested in a career in the Australian criminal justice system from a Queensland-based university to explore their opinions about their lie detection abilities, their methods to detect lies, and their thoughts on cross-cultural lie detection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study adopted a mixed methods approach, using an online survey to collect data. The survey instruments consisted of demographic, closed, and open-ended, free-text questions to enable both quantitative and qualitative analysis of responses. Participants could save and complete their survey responses later to optimise response rates and reduce participant burden. Quantitative responses were analysed statistically, while qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This study was approved by the (Blinded) Human Ethics Research Committee, approval number: 0000024109. All participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSixty participants were recruited via the official (Blinded) University social media platforms, and flyers were placed at two campuses (Blinded and Blinded). Students were invited to share the flyer on their social media pages. The recruitment flyer targeted those interested in a career in the Australian criminal justice system. However, there were no restrictions, and anyone could complete the survey (i.e., students from other disciplines and non-students).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMaterials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Qualtrics platform used for this online survey included demographic questions, tick-a-box responses to closed questions and free-text responses to the open-ended questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were directed to the Qualtrics survey via a link and scan code on the flyer. The survey commenced with demographic questions and questions related to study year level and intent to work in the Australian criminal justice system. The first question was, \u003cem\u003eDo you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you?\u003c/em\u003e (yes or no tick-a-box response). If someone stated yes, the next, free-text response question was, \u003cem\u003eDescribe how you can tell when someone is lying to you\u003c/em\u003e. Following this participants were asked, \u003cem\u003eDo you think it is harder to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying?\u003c/em\u003e (yes, no or sometimes tick-a-box response). If people responded yes or sometimes, they were directed to the question, \u003cem\u003eWhy do you think it would, or might, be harder for people from different cultural backgrounds to tell if someone was lying?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf someone stated no, to the first question, \u003cem\u003eDo you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you?\u003c/em\u003e they were directed to the question, \u003cem\u003eDo you think it is harder to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying?\u003c/em\u003e (yes, no or sometimes tick-a-box response). If someone stated no, they were directed to the end of the questionnaire. If people responded yes or sometimes, they were directed to the question, \u003cem\u003eWhy do you think it would, or might, be harder for people from different cultural backgrounds to tell if someone was lying?\u003c/em\u003e No word limit was applied to the free-text responses, and participants were encouraged to include detailed answers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eSixty participants completed the survey, 47 females and 13 males. The youngest participant was 17, and the oldest was 57 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.28, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.84). Fifty-six participants were current students, and many were studying a criminal-justice-focused degree, with 12 studying law and 20 studying a dual criminology and psychology degree. Sixty participants responded to the questions: \u003cem\u003eDo you intend on working in the Australian criminal justice system\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eDo you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you?\u003c/em\u003e A Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test (two-tailed \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.009) showed a significant association between intent to work in the criminal justice system and beliefs about lie detection ability. Twenty-nine participants intended to work in the Australian criminal justice system; 28 stated they could usually tell when someone was lying to them, and only one stated they could not. Of the 24 participants who were undecided about a career in the criminal justice system, 18 said they could usually tell when someone was lying to them, and six stated they could not. Seven participants stated they do not intend to work in the criminal justice system, with four saying they can usually tell when someone is lying and three stating they could not. The cohort most confident in their lie detection abilities were students intending to work in the Australian criminal justice system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test (two-tailed \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007) showed a significant association between year level and whether participants could usually tell when someone was lying. Twenty-five first-year students completed the survey, and 17 responded yes to the question, \u003cem\u003eDo you think you can usually tell when someone is lying to you?\u003c/em\u003e and eight said no. In contrast, all the second (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12) and third-year students (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16) stated that they can usually tell when someone is lying to them. Only one fourth-year student completed the survey, and this person responded that they could usually tell when someone was lying. Two postgraduate students completed the survey; one answered yes, they could usually tell when someone was lying, and the other answered no. Fifty-five participants responded to the question, \u003cem\u003eDo you think it is more difficult to tell when someone from a different cultural background is lying?\u003c/em\u003e The most popular response was \u003cem\u003esometimes\u003c/em\u003e (52.7%), with 23.6% of people stating \u003cem\u003eyes\u003c/em\u003e and the same percentage stating \u003cem\u003eno\u003c/em\u003e (23.6%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative Findings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForty-five participants responded to the question, \u003cem\u003eDescribe how you can tell when someone is lying to you.\u003c/em\u003e This section will present two overarching themes supported by direct participant quotations. The first theme explores how participants emphasise their skills and abilities to detect lies, particularly regarding nonverbal communication and identifying physical indicators of lying. The second theme illuminates participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of how cultural differences can pose barriers that disrupt their trusted deception-detecting techniques. Participants in this different cultural context struggled to interpret unfamiliar cues and gestures, leading to potential inaccuracies in assessing deception. The analytic findings are discussed below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 1 Individualised Strategies for Detecting Lies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants in this study demonstrated a multifaceted approach to detecting lies, marked by a firm reliance on nonverbal cues, particularly eye contact and other involuntary physical indicators. These cues were considered essential in the participants\u0026rsquo; efforts to uncover deceit. Changes in demeanour and gesture were readily identified as clear \u0026lsquo;tells\u0026rsquo; of lying, highlighting the perception of the significance of body language in the participants\u0026rsquo; deception detection process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLooking away or to the side the moment they lie or cannot look you in the eye at all. Body language does not match what they\u0026rsquo;re saying [\u0026hellip;] [P54]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI can usually tell by their non-verbal communication. I find there is usually a lack of eye contact and their body language shifts. They might fidget or excessively or stop fidgeting and their facial expressions may not match what they are saying.[P67]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Verbal indicators, while acknowledged, were not granted the same perceived importance as nonverbal cues, although the content of the conversation and its delivery in terms of narrative style, tone, pitch, and pace were identified by some participants as indicators of lying. Interestingly, participants reported that giving both too much and too little detail were indicators of lying, as were an inconsistent or overly consistent story. If a story altered too much during retellings, participants perceived this as a definite indicator of deceit. However, if the story remained consistent, this was also viewed as suspicious by participants. Participants did not explain what constituents of a recounting of an event were necessary for a story to be judged as truthful.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;ve found people can either be very vague with statements when lying, or they can be incredibly detailed to the point of seeming rehearsed. [P26]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral to many participants\u0026rsquo; strategies was an inherent trust in their skills and capabilities for lie detection. Many of them used self-identified and self-defined methods, including specific types of questioning, strategic use of silence, and active listening. However, much of this relied on assumed knowledge and false beliefs to assess the truthfulness of information provided by others. This self-reliance appeared to be a cornerstone of the individual approaches, although it is notable that participants appeared to depend on everyday assumptions and unsubstantiated beliefs about the behaviour of liars and lying.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe combination of all these factors give me a good insight into how truthful people are with me. [\u0026hellip;] My approach is never aggressive, but rather an easy free flowing conversation where all parties have an equal opportunity to ask questions, and I prefer to ask more open questions so that I can listen more rather than talk. [P15]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese preconceived notions were integrated uncritically into their individual detection strategies. Confidence in their ability to recognise lies was a salient sentiment among participants, which implied a level of assurance that may influence their judgments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI can tell someone is lying, I look at the way they are talking to me. See what they are doing with their hands eg, are they moving them a lot. I look at their eyes to see if they can look at me straight or they are easily distracted. Also focus on how they talking, ask them questions about the subject they are talking about. [P41]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e A minority of participants in the study demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of lie detection that extended beyond a simplistic reliance on body language. These individuals acknowledged the complexity of lying and highlighted several elements that influence the accuracy of their judgments. They recognised that lie detection is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour, emphasising the importance of individual differences in how people express deception. Additionally, the level of familiarity with the person being assessed was noted as a valuable factor in detection, suggesting that participants supposed that closer relationships and increased familiarity might offer some advantage in detecting deceit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt depends on how well I know the person. If it is one of my siblings, then yes, I can usually tell when they are lying to me. How - I don\u0026rsquo;t really know; its intuitive, probably from years of knowing them. If its someone I do not know very well, I have no idea if they are lying to me or not. [P21]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of personality in lie detection was another dimension considered by a minority of participants, suggesting that some individuals may be naturally more skilled in telling lies than others. Participants also highlighted the significance of prior knowledge of the subject and additional contextual information in aiding their lie-detection efforts, reinforcing the idea that a multifaceted approach that acknowledges various situational factors is crucial for accurately assessing truthfulness. The majority of participants surveyed did not express these insights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDepends on the knowledge I have as to the facts prior to the questioning. [P47]\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e This theme reflects that participants in this study placed their confidence in a diverse set of strategies for detecting lies, placing substantial emphasis on nonverbal cues, individualised techniques, and self-confidence in their ability to detect deception. The over-reliance on false beliefs and preconceptions about lying reflects the complex factors contributing to participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their approaches to lie detection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 2 Cultural Disruptions and the Complexities of Lie Detection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants in this study discussed that disruptions arising from cultural differences frequently compromised their abilities and skills to detect lies. These disruptions posed a notable challenge primarily centred around their nonverbal communication (NVC) interpretation. Most participants frequently mentioned that their unfamiliarity with various cultural norms related to NVC significantly hindered their lie detection efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIf you\u0026rsquo;re not familiar with the culture the body language cues would potentially be different to that of a culture you know well. [P30]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf particular concern was the differing cultural significance of eye contact, where making eye contact could signify disrespect in some cultures. In contrast, lack of eye contact was viewed as a sign of reverence in others. These culturally contingent variations in the meaning of eye contact were perceived as particularly problematic, introducing an element of uncertainty and error in their lie detection skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInconsistent eye contact (too much or not enough) usually means someone is hiding something or trying to convince me. It is harder to tell in other cultures where eye contact is valued differently i.e., seen as a challenge and disrespectful in some Indigenous communities. [P65]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese NVC differences restricted the effective use of individualised lie detection strategies, especially when encountering individuals from unfamiliar cultures with norms that diverged from Western conventions. These cultural complexities disrupted relied-upon techniques used by participants to pursue accurate lie detection. A prominent issue described frequently by participants was the unreliability of their lie-detection techniques in cross-cultural encounters. Their customary methods and strategies, which they felt they had refined in their own cultural contexts often proved ineffective when applied to individuals from different cultural backgrounds. This unreliability stemmed from the pronounced differences in cultural norms and values associated with deception. Such disparities impeded the participants\u0026rsquo; ability to rely on their typical approaches, as their established techniques did not align with the diverse cultural behaviours and cues they encountered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBecause people from different cultural backgrounds have certain customs to show respect to others that overlap with the indicators I look for that someone is lying. In some cultures, eye contact is used differently depending on the level of respect an individual has for someone else so therefore cannot be used as an indicator if that person is lying. It makes it harder for me to tell. [P23]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants recognised that cultural differences relating to language and linguistic expression significantly impacted their ability to detect lies. Language was granted a heightened prominence in this context in contrast to the previous theme, with participants reporting that these disparities often obscured indicators of deception. They highlighted that variations in communication styles, intonation, vocalisation, and speech pace could serve as strategy disruptors, rendering detecting deceit more challenging. These distinctions in conversational norms across cultures appeared to impede deception identification, as participants suggested that lies could be adeptly concealed within these unfamiliar speech patterns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePeople with different cultures may say things or mean things in a different context, therefore it becomes harder to understand whether the person is lying or telling the truth. [P36]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u0026rsquo;s participants noted that cultural and religious dress could further complicate their lie detection processes. This clothing had the potential to conceal important cues, such as gestures and other physical indicators of deception, that are typically relied upon by participants when attempting to detect lies. The barriers to observing these kinds of cues, along with the masking of signals of comfort and discomfort, which may be prominent when lying, hindered participants\u0026rsquo; abilities to discern truth from lies. For participants, linguistic and clothing disparities can obscure the recognition of deception and challenge the perceived effectiveness of their established lie-detection strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIf someone has head coverings, they maybe not show their uncomfortableness. Also, they may be unable to look at you directly if their face is covered. It makes it difficult. [P55]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of lie detection, participants in this study recognised that cultural norms and values related specifically to deception presented significant challenges. Participants were concerned that these cultural variations could give rise to misunderstandings and false accusations of lying because various cultural differences compromised the accuracy of their lie-detection efforts. Participants described how these normative differences and diverse cultural backgrounds could lead to inaccurate perceptions of lies and truths. Participants in the current study emphasised that these norm differences across cultures could foster misunderstandings and misconceptions not present when assessing the truthfulness of a person from a similar cultural background to themselves. A lack of shared understanding and a limited grasp of contextual cues made it difficult for participants to accurately interpret the veracity of statements and behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eEvery culture has their own beliefs so I might think they are in a uncomfortable position because they\u0026rsquo;re lying but really they just have culture differences. [P41]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDifferent cultures have different ways of showing respect and communicating and because of these differences behaviour may be misinterpreted [P33]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants in this study conveyed a clear understanding of how cultural background plays a pivotal role in shaping lying behaviour. They reported that cultural norms and values, deeply ingrained in different societies, can significantly influence the necessity and proficiency of lying within those contexts. Participants explained that, in some cultures, lying might be deemed necessary for reasons of safety, self-protection, and political corruption. In such settings, individuals may become well-versed in the art of deception, becoming more accomplished liars by necessity. This observation was echoed by multiple participants, who proposed that this cultural requirement to lie was a key factor contributing to the difficulties of cross-cultural lie detection. Individuals from these backgrounds were perceived by participants as more adept at concealing deception, adding a challenge for their lie detecting techniques.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCultural norms impact the understanding of facts, how those are conveyed and the consequences. Societal structure impacts on the views people have of right and wrong and how they have to behave in their culture to justify their actions. [P47]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, participants referred to the influence of differing cultural rules and beliefs about lying, which affected how people from various cultures engage in deception. These cultural norms encompassed a wide range of factors, including the acceptability of lying to avoid culturally taboo topics, the cultural tolerance for white lies, and religious influences that may prohibit any form of deception. Participants also noted that some individuals from certain cultural backgrounds might lie intentionally to align with Western norms and societal expectations. This variation in cultural attitudes towards lying and its consequences further complicated the task of lie detection for these participants, as individuals\u0026rsquo; behaviours were shaped by their cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt will be harder to tell if people from different cultural backgrounds are lying due to the beliefs in that culture. Example: they might be lying about something they think is right in their culture but is not right in your culture. Therefore, they might not show the signs of lying. [P42]\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme highlights participants\u0026rsquo; perceived impact of cultural variations on lying behaviours and how these variations present unique challenges for their established strategies and lie detection techniques. Participants in the study acknowledged the importance of recognising that cultural differences may be misinterpreted as attempts at deception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study assessed university students\u0026rsquo; beliefs about their lie detection abilities, their methods to detect lies and their thoughts on cross-cultural lie detection. Qualitative and quantitative analyses illustrate that the study participants believed they could accurately detect deception, particularly post-first-year participants and those intent on a career in the criminal justice system. There was a significant association between students\u0026rsquo; career aspirations and their beliefs about their lie-detection ability; 96.6% of participants intent on a career in the Australian criminal justice system stated they could usually tell when someone was lying. The data showed a linear downward trend; beliefs about lie detection ability were less for those uncertain of a career in the criminal justice system (75% stating they could usually detect lies) and lessened further for participants not intent on a criminal justice career (57.1% responded they could usually detect lies). There was also a significant association between year level and beliefs about lie detection ability; 100% of second to fourth-year participants stated they could detect lies compared to 68% of first-year participants. Caution should be applied to these findings due to low participant numbers. However, the implications of the study\u0026rsquo;s findings for future Australian criminal justice practitioners are substantial, particularly if practitioners have unwarranted confidence in their lie-detection abilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAbility Overconfidence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study illuminate the intricate strategies employed by participants in their pursuit of lie detection, offering valuable insights into future Australian criminal justice practitioners\u0026rsquo; beliefs about lie detection. The participants strongly emphasised nonverbal cues, particularly eye contact, gaze aversion, and other involuntary physical indicators, underscoring the perceived significance of body language in their deception detection process. These findings are in line with research highlighting the fallacious role of nonverbal communication in assessing truthfulness (Brennen \u0026amp; Magnussen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Vriji, 2019) and have significant implications for future criminal justice practitioners in Australia, who are likely entering their careers with a mistaken belief about the reliability of their judgment and strategies when detecting deception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants reported a reliance on their strategies to identify lies and differentiate liars from truth-tellers. Central to many participants\u0026rsquo; strategies was a self-confident trust in their skills for lie detection. These self-identified methods, including specific questioning style and strategic use of silence, were described by participants as reliable techniques to detect deception. However, the reliance on assumed knowledge and unsubstantiated beliefs about the behaviour of liars raises concerns about the potential influence of preconceived notions on their judgments (Kassin \u0026amp; Gudjonsson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). A notable finding is the participants\u0026rsquo; high confidence in their ability to recognise lies, often integrating assumptions and partialities into their detection strategies. The faith placed by participants in these self-fashioned techniques and strategies raises questions about future criminal justice professionals\u0026rsquo; potential overconfidence biases and highlights the need for revised training and education to dispel myths about the accuracy of lie detection (Blinded, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). A recent review of lie detection information provided to Queensland University criminal justice students showed the topic is largely ignored (Blinded, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, all post-first-year students who completed the survey believed they could usually tell when someone was lying, a curious finding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e It is important to note that a minority of participants demonstrated a more nuanced understanding, acknowledging the complexity of lie detection and individual differences in NVC. Further, some participants recognised the importance of context and were wary of crediting individual skill in deception detection, an accurate assumption (Brennen \u0026amp; Magnussen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, the over-reliance on false beliefs and preconceptions about lying, NVC, and lie detection is highly concerning, given the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system and the cultural differences in behavioural cues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUnravelling Cultural Differences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e While participants acknowledged that cultural differences influence NVC, particularly eye contact and gaze aversion, and recognised that the cultural significance of this differed, they did not assimilate these views into their self-styled lie detection strategies. Cross-cultural misunderstandings in interpreting body language and eye contact align with research emphasising the significance of cultural norms in shaping these behaviours (Matsumoto, 1990). The challenge of adapting their established lie detection strategies to unfamiliar cultural contexts is consistent with the notion that context-specific cues significantly influence the accuracy of deception judgements (Bond \u0026amp; DePaulo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The findings from the current study indicate that participants who were unable to rely on their regularly used strategies for detecting lies reported that they would struggle to discern lies from truth. For criminal justice practitioners who adhere to these rigid notions of detecting deception, the consequences for innocent suspects may be severe and lead to incorrect charges by the police and miscarriages of justice by the courts in Australia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications of Fallacious Beliefs about Lie Detection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal research has shown that many people, including Australian law enforcers (Hill \u0026amp; Moston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), believe they can detect lies via nonverbal behaviour (Denault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; GDRT, 2006). However, large-scale meta-analyses have shown that people are poor lie detectors (Bond et al., 2006), and the relationship between specific nonverbal behaviours and deception is either weak, unreliable, or non-existent (DePaulo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The popularity of using nonverbal behaviour to detect lies likely explains poor lie detection ability. Thus, criminal justice practitioners should be informed of two facts \u0026ndash; they are likely not accurate lie detectors, and no known nonverbal behaviours are specific to deception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralian criminal justice system practitioners may not be adequately educated on the unreliability of the Reid Technique or myths about the behaviour exhibited when an individual is lying (Blinded, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Practitioners relying solely on standardised interrogation and lie detection techniques developed within a Western cultural framework will likely encounter challenges. Misinterpretations of nonverbal cues, such as body language and eye contact, could lead to inaccurate judgments and potential biases against individuals whose cultural norms differ from Anglo-Saxon (Castillo \u0026amp; Mallard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This may be the case with Indigenous Australians, who attach different cultural significance to NVC, particularly eye contact, where gaze aversion is respectful rather than deceptive (Cultural Capability Team, 2015). This, along with colonial cultural biases and negative stereotypes regarding Indigenous Australians, is likely to lead to serious issues related to justice, impartiality, and fairness when an Indigenous individual comes into contact with the Australian criminal justice system (Cuneen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Further, if using gaze aversion to detect lies, misinterpretations are possible with neurodivergent suspects and those with specific mental health issues, who typically display lessened eye contact (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003ea; Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is crucial that Australian criminal justice practitioners recognise the limitations of universal interrogation and lie detection methods, particularly in a multicultural society like Australia, and be open to adapting their approaches to account for cultural variations. The findings from this study emphasise the need for comprehensive education and training that challenges assumptions and promotes a nuanced understanding of the complexities inherent in accurately discerning deception. Acknowledging that lying might be perceived as culturally necessary for safety or self-protection raises concerns about potential misjudgements. Criminal justice practitioners must recognise that individuals from specific cultural backgrounds may not exhibit deception in ways consistent with Western expectations (Cuneen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and this must be comprehensively addressed in higher education forums and during law enforcement training. False assumptions about the adeptness of individuals from specific cultures at lying may contribute to biased judgments, reinforcing stereotypes and potentially leading to unjust outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s main limitation was the sample size of sixty participants, particularly in terms of the quantitative portion of the study. The small sample size limits the generalisability of the results to other populations of criminal justice students, meaning further research is needed across other Australian states and territories. The statistical power of the results are reduced due to the sample size; however, a Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test was utilised to minimise the chance of type I and type II errors as is the most appropriate nonparametric test for small sample sizes. The sample size was not considered a limitation for the qualitative part of the study, as Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) recommend a sample size of 50\u0026ndash;100 participants for a medium-scale qualitative study conducted via an online survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eParticipants in this study acknowledged the difficulty of cross-cultural lie detection due to differing nonverbal behaviour norms with gaze aversion. However, despite this, the findings of this study support the results of others (GDRT, 2006), with participants displaying a belief in the utility of nonverbal behaviour, such as gaze aversion and signs of nervousness, as a lie detection method. Gaze aversion can occur due to cultural, psychological and neurological factors (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003ea; Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003eb), and it is not unreasonable to expect anyone to feel, and subsequently seem, nervous if accused of a crime. This is likely markedly more so for those who fear the police and or do not expect they will be believed. Despite a recent review showing lie detection is mostly unaddressed at Queensland universities, participants intent on a career in the Australian criminal justice system and those in their second to fourth year of study were the most confident in their lie detection ability. Future research could include other Australian universities and larger participant cohorts. In summary, this study\u0026rsquo;s findings are concerning and indicate a need for universities to address the topic of lie detection for criminal justice students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo funding was provided for this research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the (Blinded) Human Ethics Research Committee, approval number: 0000024109.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth authors contributed substantially to the study's conception, design, and analysis. They also contributed to the draft and final version of the research article and agreed to the final version. Both authors agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData that support the findings of this study have been deposited into the CQUniversity data repository: Wilcoxson, Rebecca (2023). Criminal justice students' beliefs about lie detection. CQUniversity. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25946/24734031.v1\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdam, L. \u0026amp; van Golde, C. (2020). Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1037969X19874415.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A. \u0026amp; Merckelbach, H. (2016). Strong, but wrong: Lay people\u0026rsquo;s and police officers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PLoS ONE, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156615\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0156615\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBond, C. F., \u0026amp; DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 214\u0026ndash;234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBond, C. F., Levine, T, R. \u0026amp; Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in non-verbal lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij \u0026amp; B. Verschuere (Eds), \u003cem\u003eDetecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 37\u0026ndash;58). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBradford, B., Jackson, J., Murphy, K., \u0026amp; Sargeant, E. (2022). The space between: Trustworthiness and trust in the police among three immigrant groups in Australia. Journal of Trust Research, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125\u0026ndash;152. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2155659\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/21515581.2022.2155659\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V. \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2013). \u003cem\u003eSuccessful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrennen T, Magnussen S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley. Frontiers in Psychology, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 613410. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurns, K. H., Loney-Howes, R., Wood, M. A., \u0026amp; Iliadis, M. (2022). Australian and Aotearoa scholarship of teaching and learning in criminology: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Criminal Justice Education, ahead-of\u003c/em\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e-print(ahead-of-print\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://-print(ahead-of-print\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), 1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2163264\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10511253.2022.2163264\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastillo, P. A., \u0026amp; Mallard, D. (2012). Preventing cross-cultural bias in deception judgments: The role of expectancies about nonverbal behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 967\u0026ndash;978. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111415672\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0022022111415672\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastillo, P., Tyson, G., \u0026amp; Mallard, D. (2014). An investigation of accuracy and bias in cross-cultural lie detection. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 66\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cqu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/61CQU_INST/669qn3/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1708505758\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cqu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/61CQU_INST/669qn3/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1708505758\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCuneen, C. (2020). \u003cem\u003eConflict, Politics and Crime: Aboriginal Communities and the Police\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDelmas, H., Elissalde, B., Rochat, N., Demarchi, S., Tijus, C., \u0026amp; Urdapilleta, I. (2019). Policemen\u0026rsquo;s and civilians\u0026rsquo; beliefs about facial cues of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0285-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10919-018-0285-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., Sporer, S. L., Rioux-Turcotte, J., Jarry, J., Walsh, D., Otgaar, H., Viziteu, A., Talwar, V., Keatley, D. A., Bland\u0026oacute;n-Gitlin, I., Townson, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patterson, M. L., \u0026hellip; Boivin, R. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a Jur\u0026iacute;dica (Madrid, Espa\u0026ntilde;a), \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5093/apj2019a9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. \u0026amp; Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, \u003cem\u003e129\u003c/em\u003e (1), 74\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72995648\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72995648\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaigman, D. L., Fienberg, S. E. \u0026amp; Stern, P. C. (2003). The limits of the polygraph. Issues in Science and Technology, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://issues.org/faigman/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://issues.org/faigman/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreckelton, I. (2004). The closing of the coffin on forensic polygraph evidence for Australia: Mallard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 296. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry, Psychology, and Law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 359\u0026ndash;366. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.359\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.359\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGranhag, P., Vrij, A. \u0026amp; Verschuere, B. (Eds). (2015). \u003cem\u003eDetecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley-Blackwell.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: New York.: Wiley A handbook.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHartwig, M. \u0026amp; Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, \u003cem\u003e137\u003c/em\u003e(4), 643\u0026ndash;659. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0023589\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHill, J., \u0026amp; Moston, S. (2011). Police perceptions of investigative interviewing: Training needs and operational practices in Australia. British Journal of Forensic Practice, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 72\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/14636641111134314\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/14636641111134314\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHowes, L. M., Julian, R., Oosthuizen, T., Reid, C. A., Cashman, K., \u0026amp; White, R. (2023). Redrawing the boundaries of criminology: Increasing forensic literacy by including forensic studies in the curriculum. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 250\u0026ndash;268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2096249\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10511253.2022.2096249\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIacono, W. G. (2008). Effective policing: Understanding how polygraph tests work and are used. Criminal Justice \u0026amp; Behavior, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1295\u0026ndash;1308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321529\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0093854808321529\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassin, S. M. (2013). A critical appraisal of modern police interrogations (pp. 207\u0026ndash;228). In T. Williamson (Ed.). \u003cem\u003eInvestigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation\u003c/em\u003e. Willan Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancisbooks_9781843926337\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cqu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1rb43gr/TN_cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancisbooks_9781843926337\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassin, S. M., \u0026amp; Fong, C. T. (1999). \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m innocent!\u0026rdquo;: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 499\u0026ndash;516. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022330011811\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1022330011811\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassin, S. M., \u0026amp; Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 33\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKing, W. R. \u0026amp; Dunn, T. M. (2010). Detecting deception in field settings. Policing, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 305\u0026ndash;320. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/13639511011044902\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/13639511011044902\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLanyon, I. J. (2007). Police managers. In J. P. Casey \u0026amp; M. Mitchell (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePolice leadership and management\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 107\u0026ndash;123). Leichhardt: Federation Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLim, A., Young, R. L., \u0026amp; Brewer, N. (2022). Autistic adults may be erroneously perceived as deceptive and lacking credibility. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(2), 490\u0026ndash;507. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLim, A., Young, R. L., \u0026amp; Brewer, N. (2022). Atypical behaviours found in some mental health conditions negatively affect judgments of deception and credibility. Australian Journal of Psychology, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2067486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00049530.2022.2067486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Warmelink, L., \u0026amp; Forrester, D. (2012). Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 205\u0026ndash;215. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasip, J., Barba, A., \u0026amp; Herrero, C. (2012). Behaviour Analysis Interview and common sense: A study with novice and experienced officers. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2010.543402\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13218719.2010.543402\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGlone M. S. \u0026amp; Knapp M. L. (2019). Historical perspectives on the study of lying and deception. In Docan-Morgan T. (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;28). Palgrave Macmillan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKernan, H., \u0026amp; Weber, L. (2016). Vietnamese Australians\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the trustworthiness of police. Australian \u0026amp; New Zealand Journal of Criminology, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00048658145543\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00048658145543\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeissner, A. (2002). \u0026ldquo;He's guilty!\": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(5), 469\u0026ndash;480. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/hes-guilty-investigator-bias-judgments-truth/docview/204161863/se-2?accountid=10016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/hes-guilty-investigator-bias-judgments-truth/docview/204161863/se-2?accountid=10016\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiles-Johnson, T. (2015). \"They don't identify with us\": Perceptions of police by Australian transgender people. The International Journal of Transgenderism, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 169\u0026ndash;189. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2015.1080647\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15532739.2015.1080647\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026uuml;nsterberg, H. (1908/1933). \u003cem\u003eOn the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime\u003c/em\u003e. Doubleday, Page.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Research Council. (2003). \u003cem\u003eThe polygraph and lie detection\u003c/em\u003e. National Academies Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17226/10420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17226/10420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO'Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., \u0026amp; Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(6), 530\u0026ndash;538. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSivasubramaniam, D., \u0026amp; Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). Ethnicity and trust: Perceptions of police bias. International Journal of Police Science \u0026amp; Management, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 388\u0026ndash;401. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2008.10.4.094\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1350/ijps.2008.10.4.094\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolbu A. \u0026amp; Frank M. G. (2019). Lie catchers: Evolution and development of deception in modern times. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 41\u0026ndash;66). Palgrave Macmillan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSternglanz, R. W., Morris, W. L., Morrow, M. \u0026amp; Braverman, J. (2019). A review of meta-analyses about deception detection. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 303\u0026ndash;326). Palgrave Macmillan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_16\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_16\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStreet, C. N. H. (2023). \u003cem\u003eAn introduction to the science of deception and lie detection\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSynnott, J., Dietzel, D. \u0026amp; Ioannou, M. (2015). A review of the polygraph: History, methodology and current status. Crime Psychology Review, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 60\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0022022105282295\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Queensland Health Cultural Capability Team (2015). \u003cem\u003eCommunicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved March 5, 2021. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/151923/communicating.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/151923/communicating.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law \u0026amp; Criminology, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 848\u0026ndash;881. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1136489\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1136489\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUono, S., \u0026amp; Hietanen, J. K. (2015). Eye contact perception in the West and East: a cross-cultural study. PloS One, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), e0118094\u0026ndash;e0118094. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118094\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0118094\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analysing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 160\u0026ndash;167. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3457\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/acp.3457\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrij, A. (2015). Deception detection. In B. L. Cutler \u0026amp; P. A. Zapf (Eds), \u003cem\u003eAPA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 225\u0026ndash;244). American Psychological Association. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/14462-008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/14462-008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrij, A., \u0026amp; Fisher, R. P. (2020). Unraveling the misconception about deception and nervous behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 1377\u0026ndash;1377. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01377\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01377\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrij, A., Mann, S., \u0026amp; Fisher, R. P. (2006). An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview. Law and Human Behavior, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 329\u0026ndash;345. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlinded. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWimshurst, K., \u0026amp; Ransley, J. (2007). Police education and the university sector: Contrasting models from the Australian experience. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 106\u0026ndash;122. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10511250601144365\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10511250601144365\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Australia, criminal justice students, lie detection methods","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCriminal justice practitioners\u0026rsquo; use of erroneous lie-detection methods contributes to inaccurate convictions and research indicates some Queensland police are using fallible methods. A recent study showed that Queensland universities primarily ignore the topic of lie detection. Thus, criminal justice students entering Queensland universities with fallacious lie detection beliefs are unlikely to have them corrected. It was unknown if Australian criminal justice students hold inaccurate lie detection beliefs. Therefore, this mixed-methods study investigated undergraduate students\u0026rsquo; beliefs about lie detection methods, many of whom were enrolled in criminal justice-focused degrees at a Queensland-based university. Sixty undergraduate students responded to open and closed-ended questions regarding their intentions to work in the criminal justice system, their opinion on their lie detection ability, methods used to determine deception, and thoughts about cross-cultural lie detection. The findings revealed a prevalence of false beliefs about cues to deception indicating educational needs for Australian criminal justice-career-focused students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Australian Criminal Justice Student’s Beliefs about Lie Detection Methods","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-03 16:18:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4518644/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-08-07T02:26:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-08-06T02:57:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"250625455619435108084285765211552771603","date":"2024-07-15T09:18:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-10T00:02:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"151539246197685604445900275582323129450","date":"2024-07-09T12:59:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-06-18T06:37:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-06-18T06:17:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-06-14T17:02:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2024-06-03T01:34:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e0915cb3-e909-4c0d-9392-80248c8998e2","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 3rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-08-28T02:34:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-03 16:18:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4518644","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4518644","identity":"rs-4518644","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}