Interviewing may be a useful forensic-type procedure for acquiring indications of deception to conceal material financial statement fraud (Buckhoff and Hansen 2002). According to deception-detection research (see Feeley and Young 1998), people behave differently when lying because of the cognitive demands required to concoct coherent fabrications to answer interview questions (eg, Vrij 2001) and because of the stressfulness of lying (eg, Zuckerman et al. 1981). The fraud examiners manual (ACFE 2006, pp. 3.234-3.238) calls for interviewers (ie, forensic accountants) to be vigilant for those verbal and nonverbal behaviors that may indicate lying. Professional accounting organizations have issued pronouncements (eg, AICPA 1997, 2002; IAASB 2004) and reports (CICA 2000) that make a similar recommendation. Such recommendations rest on the presumption that interviewers can perceive predictive deception indicators and act on them appropriately. Two studies, both by Lee and Welker (2007, 2008), experimentally assessed the ability to detect deception in interviews. Neither found encouraging results. In the 2007 study, they evaluated whether accounting students (surrogates for entry-level accountants) could detect deception and found poor deception detection accuracy rates. In the 2008 study, they evaluated how experienced auditors go about making deception-detection judgments and found that, while there was evidence that auditors had some deception-detection ability, their accuracy rate was poor and not significantly different than the rates for accounting students. Lee and Welker’s findings fuel doubt as to whether interviewers should be using communicative behaviors for deception detection in interviews. However, the laboratory may provide an unsuitable venue for assessing deception-detection ability. It is possible that