非语言信息(偏差)是否会降低 "取最佳值 "启发式欺骗检测的准确性?

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Applied Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1002/acp.70006
Aaron Benjamin Lob, Nisrin Chakir, Laurine van Munster van Heuven, Bruno Verschuere
{"title":"非语言信息(偏差)是否会降低 \"取最佳值 \"启发式欺骗检测的准确性?","authors":"Aaron Benjamin Lob,&nbsp;Nisrin Chakir,&nbsp;Laurine van Munster van Heuven,&nbsp;Bruno Verschuere","doi":"10.1002/acp.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People are poor lie detectors, partly because they hold false beliefs about nonverbal cues to deception. Here, we investigated if guiding people to rely only on a message's detailedness (“take-the-best”) boosts their lie detection and to what extent such heuristic judgments are immune to nonverbal information. In three studies (<i>N</i>s = 109, 88 and 144), participants made detailedness-based veracity judgements, of text versus video statements (Study 1), or of statements without or with biasing nonverbal behavior (truth tellers diverting, liars maintaining gaze; Studies 2 and 3). Compared to unguided judgements, participants using the heuristic method achieved higher deception detection accuracy throughout. Mere access to nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study 1), but the heuristic was not fully immune to biasing nonverbal behavior (Studies 2, 3). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior benefits deception detection and suggest that only focusing on diagnostic cues improves lie detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":48281,"journal":{"name":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acp.70006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take-the-Best Heuristic for Deception Detection?\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Benjamin Lob,&nbsp;Nisrin Chakir,&nbsp;Laurine van Munster van Heuven,&nbsp;Bruno Verschuere\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acp.70006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People are poor lie detectors, partly because they hold false beliefs about nonverbal cues to deception. Here, we investigated if guiding people to rely only on a message's detailedness (“take-the-best”) boosts their lie detection and to what extent such heuristic judgments are immune to nonverbal information. In three studies (<i>N</i>s = 109, 88 and 144), participants made detailedness-based veracity judgements, of text versus video statements (Study 1), or of statements without or with biasing nonverbal behavior (truth tellers diverting, liars maintaining gaze; Studies 2 and 3). Compared to unguided judgements, participants using the heuristic method achieved higher deception detection accuracy throughout. Mere access to nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study 1), but the heuristic was not fully immune to biasing nonverbal behavior (Studies 2, 3). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior benefits deception detection and suggest that only focusing on diagnostic cues improves lie detection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"38 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acp.70006\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70006\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.70006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们的测谎能力很差,部分原因是他们对非语言的欺骗线索持有错误的信念。在这里,我们研究了引导人们只依赖于信息的详细程度("取其精华")是否能提高他们的测谎能力,以及这种启发式判断在多大程度上能不受非语言信息的影响。在三项研究(人数分别为 109、88 和 144)中,受试者分别对文字和视频陈述(研究 1),或没有或有非语言行为偏差的陈述(说真话的人转移视线,说假话的人保持注视;研究 2 和 3)进行了基于细节的真实性判断。与无指导判断相比,使用启发式方法的参与者在整个过程中的欺骗检测准确率更高。仅仅接触非言语行为并不会降低成绩(研究 1),但启发式方法并不能完全避免非言语行为的偏差(研究 2、3)。我们的研究结果对 "接触非言语行为有利于测谎 "这一非专业观点提出了质疑,并表明只有关注诊断线索才能提高测谎水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take-the-Best Heuristic for Deception Detection?

People are poor lie detectors, partly because they hold false beliefs about nonverbal cues to deception. Here, we investigated if guiding people to rely only on a message's detailedness (“take-the-best”) boosts their lie detection and to what extent such heuristic judgments are immune to nonverbal information. In three studies (Ns = 109, 88 and 144), participants made detailedness-based veracity judgements, of text versus video statements (Study 1), or of statements without or with biasing nonverbal behavior (truth tellers diverting, liars maintaining gaze; Studies 2 and 3). Compared to unguided judgements, participants using the heuristic method achieved higher deception detection accuracy throughout. Mere access to nonverbal behavior did not deteriorate performance (Study 1), but the heuristic was not fully immune to biasing nonverbal behavior (Studies 2, 3). Our findings challenge the lay notion that access to nonverbal behavior benefits deception detection and suggest that only focusing on diagnostic cues improves lie detection.

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
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Applied Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Applied Cognitive Psychology seeks to publish the best papers dealing with psychological analyses of memory, learning, thinking, problem solving, language, and consciousness as they occur in the real world. Applied Cognitive Psychology will publish papers on a wide variety of issues and from diverse theoretical perspectives. The journal focuses on studies of human performance and basic cognitive skills in everyday environments including, but not restricted to, studies of eyewitness memory, autobiographical memory, spatial cognition, skill training, expertise and skilled behaviour. Articles will normally combine realistic investigations of real world events with appropriate theoretical analyses and proper appraisal of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Verbal Framing of Video and Attitudes Toward Police on Mock Jurors' Judgements of Body-Worn Camera Video Rapid Learning in Frontline Grocery Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take-the-Best Heuristic for Deception Detection? Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects Domain-General Individual Differences in Visual Comparison: Generalisability and Stability of Visual Comparison Ability Re-Visited
×
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