Markowitz, David M.Hancock, Jeffery T.Woodworth, Michael T.Ely, Maxwell2023-10-172023-10-172023-02-07Markowitz DM, Hancock JT, Woodworth MT and Ely M (2023) Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews. Front. Psychol. 14:1134052. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134052https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134052https://hdl.handle.net/1794/289927 pagesMost deception scholars agree that deception production and deception detection effects often display mixed results across settings. For example, some liars use more emotion than truth-tellers when discussing fake opinions on abortion, but not when communicating fake distress. Similarly, verbal and nonverbal cues are often inconsistent predictors to assist in deception detection, leading to mixed accuracies and detection rates. Why are lie production and detection effects typically inconsistent? In this piece, we argue that aspects of the context are often unconsidered in how lies are produced and detected. Greater theory-building related to contextual constraints of deception are therefore required. We reintroduce and extend the Contextual Organization of Language and Deception (COLD) model, a framework that outlines how psychological dynamics, pragmatic goals, and genre conventions are aspects of the context that moderate the relationship between deception and communication behavior such as language. We extend this foundation by proposing three additional aspects of the context — individual differences, situational opportunities for deception, and interpersonal characteristics — for the COLD model that can specifically inform and potentially improve forensic interviewing. We conclude with a forward-looking perspective for deception researchers and practitioners related to the need for more theoretical explication of deception and its detection related to the context.enCreative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-USDeceptionLyingContextCold modelLanguageForensic interviewingArticle