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

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Psychiatry Psychology and Law Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.1080/13218719.2023.2242433

Samantha Mann, Aldert Vrij, Haneen Deeb, Sharon Leal

{"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}

引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了魔鬼代言人测谎方法，它旨在检测关于观点的谎言。在这种方法中，参与者在引出观点的问题中给出他们持有观点的理由，在魔鬼代言人的问题中给出反对他们观点的理由。说真话的人(n = 55)报告了他们对抗议者行为的真实看法，而说假话的人(n = 55)报告了他们的真实看法。答案是根据论证的数量和合理性、即时性、清晰度和脚本性进行编码的。数据分析采用方差分析，以准确性为唯一因素。为了支持这一假设，说真话的人比说假话的人提供了更多的支持论点，而且在所有引出意见的问题上，他们的答案听起来比说假话的人更合理、更直接、更清晰。在魔鬼代言人的问题中预测到相反的模式，但没有发现，可能是由于问题简化了。编写脚本也不是诊断准确性指标。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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.

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

Psychiatry Psychology and Law Multiple-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

7.70%

发文量

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.