*A lens model examination of* *consistency and deception* Charlotte Hudson1, Aldert Vrij1, Lucy Akehurst1, Lorraine Hope1, & Liam Satchell2 *1**Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth* *2**Department of Psychology, University of Winchester* *Introduction: *The “consistency heuristic” is the frequently reported belief that consistency indicates truthfulness and inconsistency indicates deception. However, research has shown the consistency heuristic to be contrary to actual truth teller and liar behaviour. This suggests that truth tellers are more likely to be inconsistent due to the reconstructive nature of memory, and that liars are more likely to repeat information to appear consistent and therefore truthful. Nonetheless, it is commonly reported that both laypeople and criminal justice professionals believe that inconsistency is a good cue to deception, although to date there is little research examining whether people* utilise* the consistency heuristic when making veracity judgements, or merely self-report it as a perceived cue to deception. In fact, research suggests that the exact same series of consecutive statements can be considered consistent by one judge, and inconsistent by another. It therefore seems that whether a series of statements are perceived consistent or not (and potentially therefore truthful or not) is moderated by the individual differences of the judge. *Study purpose: *To date, researchers have attempted to explain subjective cues to deception based upon self-report (see meta-analysis by Hartwig & Bond, 2011). This usually takes the form of open-ended questions asking about what evaluators believe are good cues to deception or what cues they base their veracity judgements on. However, there is a methodological limitation to this approach, as there is no way to establish with certainty that the cues people report using are actually the ones that best explain their decision-making process. It is possible that people are unaware of what drives their veracity judgements and, when asked about it, choose to report explicit social stereotypes about deceptive behaviour. This can be examined through lens modelling. *Methodology: *Using a repeated measures design, participants first completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about to deception. They then read four statements of varying levels of consistency and detail, and rated these statements on eight features (perceived veracity, amount of detail, consistency, number of repetitions, number of omissions, number of reminiscences, number of contradictions, and confidence for their veracity judgement). *Expected results: *A complete dataset is due in May 2019, and will be analysed using linear mixed models to account for random effects of sampling participants and statements. These models will demonstrate the variance explained by statement information (i.e. consistency, repetitions) in statement veracity and rater judgments of veracity. These tests will be presented in a lens model format which will highlight the preferences and biases of participants observing repeated interviews, in order to examine what cues are actually being utilised within the veracity decision-making process. -- *Charlotte Hudson.* *PhD Student / Research Associate* Department of Psychology, KH 2.02 University of Portsmouth King Henry Street Portsmouth PO1 2DY 023 9284 6614 Twitter: @C_Hudson13 Email: charlotte.hudson@port.ac.uk Drop In Office Hours Monday 12:00-13:00 // Thursday 10:00-11:00