Papers · Articles

Credibility Under Scrutiny

A. C. Applebee, L. N. Combe · 2026

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic narrative review and comparative policy analysis examining the empirical validity of behavioural credibility assessment as practiced within the Australian criminal justice system. Situated within the theoretical traditions of critical criminology (Scraton, 2007; Hillyard & Tombs, 2007), labelling theory (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967), and epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), the paper interrogates the assumption that criminal justice professionals can reliably distinguish truthful from deceptive behaviour through behavioural observation. Metaanalytic evidence (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; N = 24,483 judgments across 206 studies) establishes that the accuracy of human deception detection is 54.1%, marginally exceeding chance (50%). A further meta-analysis (DePaulo et al., 2003; 158 cues across 116 studies) found that the majority of behavioural cues commonly associated with deception lack empirical support. The paper’s central scholarly contribution is the explicit integration of polyvagal theory (Porges, 2011) with the deception detection literature to articulate a mechanism by which the autonomic nervous system responses produced by acute trauma — silence, withdrawal, gaze aversion, psychomotor shutdown — are functionally indistinguishable from the cues that credibility assessors interpret as deceptive.

Download PDFCite