The Verifiability Approach predicts that truth tellers will include details that can be verified by the interviewer, whereas liars will refrain from providing such details. A meta‐analysis revealed that truth tellers indeed provided more verifiable details (k = 28, d = 0.49, 95% CI [0.25; 0.74], BF₁₀ = 93.28), and a higher proportion of verifiable details (k = 26, d = 0.49 95% CI: 0.25, 0.74, p < .001, BF₁₀ = 81.49) than liars. We found no evidence that liars would include more unverifiable details than truth tellers (k = 20, d = −0.31, 95% CI [−0.02; 0.64], BF₁₀ = 1.12) Moderator analysis revealed the verifiable detail effect was substantially larger when the statement is the suspect's alibi, but smaller when an incentive to appear credible was used. Our findings support the main prediction behind the Verifiability Approach, but also stress the need for larger sample sizes and independent replications.

中文翻译：

---

使用可验证性方法将欺骗性陈述与真实陈述相区别：荟萃分析

“可验证性方法”预测，真相讲述者将包括可以由访问员验证的细节，而说谎者将避免提供此类细节。荟萃分析表明，真相算命者确实提供了更多可验证的细节（k = 28，d = 0.49，95 ％CI [0.25; 0.74]，BF ₁₀ = 93.28），以及更高比例的可验证细节（k = 26，d = 0.49 95％CI：0.25、0.74，p  <.001，BF ₁₀ = 81.49）。我们没有发现证据表明撒谎者会比真相讲述者包含更多无法验证的细节（k = 20，d = -0.31，95％CI [-0.02; 0.64]，BF ₁₀= 1.12）主持人分析显示，当陈述是犯罪嫌疑人的不在场证明时，可证实的细节影响显着大，而在使用了令人信服的诱因时，可证明的细节影响则小得多。我们的发现支持“可验证性方法”背后的主要预测，但同时也强调需要更大的样本量和独立的重复性。