{"title":"光说不做?使用“魔鬼代言人”提问协议来确定有关抗议者行为的意见的真实性","authors":"Samantha Mann, Aldert Vrij, Haneen Deeb, Sharon Leal","doi":"10.1080/13218719.2023.2242433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examined the Devil’s Advocate lie detection method which is aimed at detecting lying about opinions. In this approach, participants give reasons for why they hold an opinion in the eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their opinion in a devil’s advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported their true opinion about protestor actions, whereas lie tellers (n = 55) reported the opposite of their true opinion. Answers were coded for number of arguments and plausibility, immediacy, clarity and scriptedness. Data were analysed with analyses of variance with veracity being the sole factor. Supporting the hypothesis, truth tellers provided more pro-arguments than lie tellers and to all eliciting-opinion questions their answers sounded more plausible, immediate and clear than lie tellers’ answers. The opposite pattern was predicted for the devil’s advocate question but not found, likely caused by the simplification of the question. Neither was being scripted a diagnostic veracity indicator.","PeriodicalId":51553,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about protester actions\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Mann, Aldert Vrij, Haneen Deeb, Sharon Leal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13218719.2023.2242433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examined the Devil’s Advocate lie detection method which is aimed at detecting lying about opinions. In this approach, participants give reasons for why they hold an opinion in the eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their opinion in a devil’s advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported their true opinion about protestor actions, whereas lie tellers (n = 55) reported the opposite of their true opinion. Answers were coded for number of arguments and plausibility, immediacy, clarity and scriptedness. Data were analysed with analyses of variance with veracity being the sole factor. Supporting the hypothesis, truth tellers provided more pro-arguments than lie tellers and to all eliciting-opinion questions their answers sounded more plausible, immediate and clear than lie tellers’ answers. The opposite pattern was predicted for the devil’s advocate question but not found, likely caused by the simplification of the question. Neither was being scripted a diagnostic veracity indicator.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry Psychology and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry Psychology and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2242433\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry Psychology and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2242433","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about protester actions
We examined the Devil’s Advocate lie detection method which is aimed at detecting lying about opinions. In this approach, participants give reasons for why they hold an opinion in the eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their opinion in a devil’s advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported their true opinion about protestor actions, whereas lie tellers (n = 55) reported the opposite of their true opinion. Answers were coded for number of arguments and plausibility, immediacy, clarity and scriptedness. Data were analysed with analyses of variance with veracity being the sole factor. Supporting the hypothesis, truth tellers provided more pro-arguments than lie tellers and to all eliciting-opinion questions their answers sounded more plausible, immediate and clear than lie tellers’ answers. The opposite pattern was predicted for the devil’s advocate question but not found, likely caused by the simplification of the question. Neither was being scripted a diagnostic veracity indicator.
期刊介绍：
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law is rapidly becoming a driving force behind the up-to-date examination of forensic issues in psychiatry and psychology. It is a fully refereed journal with outstanding academic and professional representation on its editorial board and is aimed at health, mental health and legal professionals. The journal aims to publish and disseminate information regarding research and development in forensic psychiatry, forensic psychology and areas of law and other disciplines in which psychiatry and psychology have a relevance. Features of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law include review articles; analyses of professional issues, controversies and developments; case studies; original empirical studies; book reviews.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
