高效测谎仪的通信模式

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION Southern Communication Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-14 DOI:10.1080/1041794x.2023.2280593
Curt Anderson, Kevin Bies, Andrew Gelderman, Alivia Moore, Kafui Sakyi-Addo, Katie Thompson, Megan Wooten, Timothy R. Levine
{"title":"高效测谎仪的通信模式","authors":"Curt Anderson, Kevin Bies, Andrew Gelderman, Alivia Moore, Kafui Sakyi-Addo, Katie Thompson, Megan Wooten, Timothy R. Levine","doi":"10.1080/1041794x.2023.2280593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTA prior experiment involving professional interrogators using unscripted questions produced exceptionally high (98%) deception detection accuracy. Guided by truth-default theory, videotapes of those interviews were examined and coded to better understand how the unusually high degree of accuracy might have been obtained. Eighty-four videotaped interviews of potential cheaters by five professional interrogators were used to develop a coding scheme consisting of 78 potentially relevant behaviors. Consistent with truth-default theory, the experts explored communication motives that might make deceit more likely, sought contextually relevant communication, circled back in questioning with attention to inconsistencies, and persuaded honest confessions. Observed strategies for persuading honesty included pitting the interviewee against their partner, minimizing the act of cheating, normalizing cheating as just human nature, appealing to the interviewee’s character, appealing to the integrity of the research or data, and guilt appeals. The findings are discussed in terms of practical and theoretical implications.KEYWORDS: Confessionsdeception detectionexpertsinterrogationtruth-default theory Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group [J-FBI-12-196].","PeriodicalId":46274,"journal":{"name":"Southern Communication Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Communication Patterns of Highly Effective Lie Detectors\",\"authors\":\"Curt Anderson, Kevin Bies, Andrew Gelderman, Alivia Moore, Kafui Sakyi-Addo, Katie Thompson, Megan Wooten, Timothy R. Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1041794x.2023.2280593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTA prior experiment involving professional interrogators using unscripted questions produced exceptionally high (98%) deception detection accuracy. Guided by truth-default theory, videotapes of those interviews were examined and coded to better understand how the unusually high degree of accuracy might have been obtained. Eighty-four videotaped interviews of potential cheaters by five professional interrogators were used to develop a coding scheme consisting of 78 potentially relevant behaviors. Consistent with truth-default theory, the experts explored communication motives that might make deceit more likely, sought contextually relevant communication, circled back in questioning with attention to inconsistencies, and persuaded honest confessions. Observed strategies for persuading honesty included pitting the interviewee against their partner, minimizing the act of cheating, normalizing cheating as just human nature, appealing to the interviewee’s character, appealing to the integrity of the research or data, and guilt appeals. The findings are discussed in terms of practical and theoretical implications.KEYWORDS: Confessionsdeception detectionexpertsinterrogationtruth-default theory Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group [J-FBI-12-196].\",\"PeriodicalId\":46274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern Communication Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern Communication Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2023.2280593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Communication Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2023.2280593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一项涉及专业询问者使用无脚本问题的事先实验产生了异常高(98%)的欺骗检测准确率。在事实默认理论的指导下,对这些采访的录像带进行了检查和编码,以更好地理解如何获得异常高的准确性。由五名专业审讯人员对潜在作弊者进行的84次录像访谈被用来制定一个由78种潜在相关行为组成的编码方案。与事实默认理论一致,专家们探索了可能使欺骗更容易发生的交流动机,寻求与上下文相关的交流,在问题中循环,注意不一致,并说服诚实的供词。观察到的说服诚实的策略包括让受访者与他们的伴侣对立,尽量减少作弊行为,将作弊正常化为人类的本性,诉诸受访者的性格,诉诸研究或数据的完整性,以及诉诸负罪感。本文从实践意义和理论意义两方面对研究结果进行了讨论。关键词:供词;欺骗检测;专家;审讯;本研究得到了美国司法部、联邦调查局、高价值被拘留者审讯小组[J-FBI-12-196]的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Communication Patterns of Highly Effective Lie Detectors
ABSTRACTA prior experiment involving professional interrogators using unscripted questions produced exceptionally high (98%) deception detection accuracy. Guided by truth-default theory, videotapes of those interviews were examined and coded to better understand how the unusually high degree of accuracy might have been obtained. Eighty-four videotaped interviews of potential cheaters by five professional interrogators were used to develop a coding scheme consisting of 78 potentially relevant behaviors. Consistent with truth-default theory, the experts explored communication motives that might make deceit more likely, sought contextually relevant communication, circled back in questioning with attention to inconsistencies, and persuaded honest confessions. Observed strategies for persuading honesty included pitting the interviewee against their partner, minimizing the act of cheating, normalizing cheating as just human nature, appealing to the interviewee’s character, appealing to the integrity of the research or data, and guilt appeals. The findings are discussed in terms of practical and theoretical implications.KEYWORDS: Confessionsdeception detectionexpertsinterrogationtruth-default theory Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group [J-FBI-12-196].
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Dominant Factors Driving Civic Engagement on of the Bandung City Government’s Social Media Instructor Communicative Behaviors as Cultivators of Students’ Task Value Managing Jealousy within Non-Monogamous Romantic Relationships: A Critical Discursive Psychological Approach Explicating the Pathways Among Memorable Message Themes About Religion and Spirituality, Positive Role Models for Aging, and Successful Aging Understanding Media Effects Through Media Technological Attributes: Young People’s Second Screening Use and Political Efficacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1