Credibility Assessment

Our research in this area has examined the effects of training to detect deception, the role of “investigator biases,” and the ability of individuals to distinguish between true and false denials, true and false confessions, true and false alibis, and the concealment of objects or not (such as weapons, unstable devices, etc.). In general, this research has indicated that training on non-diagnostic cues can lead individuals to be more suspicious and thereby creates a bias towards deceit.  However, when training includes more diagnostic indicators of deception (cognitive-based cues), performance can be enhanced, and proper interviewing tactics that encourage the provision of information and induce cognitive load can enhance the discriminability of these cues.  Our research seeks to identify the most diagnostic approaches for eliciting information and, importantly, diagnostic cues to credibility.


Dianiska, R. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2023). The effect of credibility assessment techniques on consistency and subsequent memory for the truth. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 2253.

Dianiska, R. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2023). The effect of lying on memory and metamemory when deception is repeated and volitional. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 12, 128-140.

Sweet, D. M,, Quigley-McBride, A., Meissner, C. A., & Ringstad, K. (2023). Perceptions of movement patterns and concealment detection in naïve observers and law enforcement officers: A Lens Model analysis. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 50, 351-373.

Leach, A. M., Da Silva, C. S., Connors, C. J., Vrantsidis, M. R. T, Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2020). Looks like a liar? Beliefs about native and non-native speakers’ deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 387-396.

Dianiska, R. E., Cash, D. K., Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2019). The reciprocal nature of lying and memory: Memory confabulation and diagnostic cues to deception. In T. Docan-Morgan’s (Ed.), Handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 347-365). Palgrave.

Sweet, D. M., Meissner, C. A., & Atkinson, D. (2017). Assessing law enforcement performance in behavior-based threat detection tasks involving a concealed weapon or device. Law & Human Behavior, 41, 411-421.

Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43, 283-343.

Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2015). Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: No proof to the contrary in Levine et al. (2014). Psychology, Crime, & Law21, 901-909.

Culhane, S. E., Kehn, A., Horgan, A. J., Meissner, C. A., Hosch, H. M., & Wodahl, E. J. (2013). Generation and detection of true and false alibi statements. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law, 20, 619-638.

Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 33-41.

Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., & Meissner, C. A. (2012). A positive, collaborative, and theoretically-based approach to improving deception detection. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 1, 122-123.

Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1052-1055.

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 211-228.

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You’re guilty, so just confess!” Cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In D. Lassiter’s (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 85-106). Kluwer Academic /Plenum Press.

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.