<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-15T17:43:30Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:gredos.usal.es:10366/159906" metadataPrefix="rdf">https://gredos.usal.es/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:gredos.usal.es:10366/159906</identifier><datestamp>2025-04-30T20:45:50Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10366_156485</setSpec><setSpec>com_10366_4512</setSpec><setSpec>com_10366_3823</setSpec><setSpec>col_10366_156486</setSpec></header><metadata><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ds="http://dspace.org/ds/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:ow="http://www.ontoweb.org/ontology/1#" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf.xsd">
<ow:Publication rdf:about="oai:gredos.usal.es:10366/159906">
<dc:title>Are Computers Effective Lie Detectors? A Meta-Analysis of Linguistic Cues to Deception</dc:title>
<dc:creator>Hauch, Valerie</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Blandón-Gitlin, Iris</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Masip Pallejá, Jaume</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Sporer, Siegfried L.</dc:creator>
<dc:subject>Detection of deception</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Linguistic cue</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Computer program</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Meta-analysis</dc:subject>
<dc:description>[EN]This meta-analysis investigates linguistic cues to deception and whether these cues can be detected with computer programs.&#xd;
We integrated operational definitions for 79 cues from 44 studies where software had been used to identify linguistic&#xd;
deception cues. These cues were allocated to six research questions. As expected, the meta-analyses demonstrated that,&#xd;
relative to truth-tellers, liars experienced greater cognitive load, expressed more negative emotions, distanced themselves&#xd;
more from events, expressed fewer sensory–perceptual words, and referred less often to cognitive processes. However,&#xd;
liars were not more uncertain than truth-tellers. These effects were moderated by event type, involvement, emotional&#xd;
valence, intensity of interaction, motivation, and other moderators. Although the overall effect size was small, theorydriven&#xd;
predictions for certain cues received support. These findings not only further our knowledge about the usefulness of&#xd;
linguistic cues to detect deception with computers in applied settings but also elucidate the relationship between language&#xd;
and deception.</dc:description>
<dc:date>2024-10-03T06:45:05Z</dc:date>
<dc:date>2024-10-03T06:45:05Z</dc:date>
<dc:date>2015</dc:date>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
<dc:identifier>Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip Pallejá, J., &amp; Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are Computers Effective Lie Detectors? A Meta-Analysis of Linguistic Cues to Deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>1088-8683</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10366/159906</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>10.1177/1088868314556539</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>1532-7957</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
<dc:rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional</dc:rights>
</ow:Publication>
</rdf:RDF></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>