The sound of critics: New tunes, old tunes, and resistance to play

Abstract

We are pleased that our cognitive interviewing to detect decepion approach received support from a large number of academics nd professional commentators (Bond, 2012; Evans, Houston, & eissner, 2012; Kassin, 2012; Lane & Vieira, 2012; Tedeschini, 012). Evans et al. (2012) report that they have tested some of ur methods themselves and replicated our findings. This gives urther support to our approach. We see our efforts very much as ork in progress and several commentators gave useful guidance or improvements. Lane and Vieira’s (2012) discussion about the rade-offs between information elicitation and deception detection s worth considering, as are their views on individual differences in orking memory capacity (see also Bond, 2012), and further theretical refinement of the cognitive and social processes involved n deception. Evans et al. (2012) correctly mention that applying group-level’ research findings to an ‘individual case level’ remains challenge, and we share their views about the importance of esearching interpreter-mediated interactions, networks (rather han individuals) and lying about future events (rather than past vents). In fact, we have started examining ‘lying in networks’ nd ‘lying about intentions’. In our network research, Vrij and coleagues focus on characteristics that emergewhengroups of people iscuss a shared experience. They tend to reconstruct the event ointly resulting in interacting with each other, sharing the telling