Using the Scharff-technique to elicit information: How to effectively establish the “illusion of knowing it all”?

IF 7.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Lennart May , Pär Anders Granhag
{"title":"Using the Scharff-technique to elicit information: How to effectively establish the “illusion of knowing it all”?","authors":"Lennart May ,&nbsp;Pär Anders Granhag","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Scharff-technique is used for eliciting information from human sources. At the very core of the technique is the “illusion of knowing it all” tactic, which aims to inflate a source's perception of how much knowledge an interviewer holds about the event to be discussed. For the current study, we mapped the effects following two different ways of introducing this particular tactic; a traditional way of implementation where the interviewer explicitly states that s/he already knows most of the important information (the <em>traditional condition</em>), and a new way of implementation where the interviewer just starts to present the information that s/he holds (the <em>just start condition</em>). The two versions were compared in two separate experiments. In Experiment 1 (<em>N</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->60), we measured the participants’ perceptions of the interviewer's knowledge, and in Experiment 2 (<em>N</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->60), the participants’ perceptions of the interviewer's knowledge gaps. We found that participants in the just start condition (a) believed the interviewer had more knowledge (Experiment 1), and (b) searched less actively for gaps in the interviewer's knowledge (Experiment 2), compared to the traditional condition. We will discuss the current findings and how sources test and perceive the knowledge his or her interviewer possesses within a framework of social hypothesis testing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":"8 2","pages":"Pages 79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1889186116300014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Scharff-technique is used for eliciting information from human sources. At the very core of the technique is the “illusion of knowing it all” tactic, which aims to inflate a source's perception of how much knowledge an interviewer holds about the event to be discussed. For the current study, we mapped the effects following two different ways of introducing this particular tactic; a traditional way of implementation where the interviewer explicitly states that s/he already knows most of the important information (the traditional condition), and a new way of implementation where the interviewer just starts to present the information that s/he holds (the just start condition). The two versions were compared in two separate experiments. In Experiment 1 (N = 60), we measured the participants’ perceptions of the interviewer's knowledge, and in Experiment 2 (N = 60), the participants’ perceptions of the interviewer's knowledge gaps. We found that participants in the just start condition (a) believed the interviewer had more knowledge (Experiment 1), and (b) searched less actively for gaps in the interviewer's knowledge (Experiment 2), compared to the traditional condition. We will discuss the current findings and how sources test and perceive the knowledge his or her interviewer possesses within a framework of social hypothesis testing.

使用沙夫技术引出信息:如何有效地建立“无所不知的错觉”?
Scharff技术用于从人类来源获取信息。这项技术的核心是“无所不知的幻觉”策略,旨在夸大消息来源对面试官对待讨论事件的了解程度。在目前的研究中,我们通过两种不同的方式介绍了这种特殊策略的效果;一种传统的实施方式,面试官明确表示他/她已经知道大多数重要信息(传统条件),而另一种新的实施方式是面试官刚刚开始展示他/她掌握的信息(刚刚开始条件)。在两个单独的实验中比较了这两个版本。在实验1(N=60)中,我们测量了参与者对面试官知识的感知,在实验2(N=60。我们发现,与传统条件相比,刚开始条件下的参与者(a)认为面试官有更多的知识(实验1),(b)不那么积极地寻找面试官知识的差距(实验2)。我们将讨论当前的发现,以及来源如何在社会假设测试的框架内测试和感知他或她的面试官所拥有的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信