不同模型语句变体引出信息和欺骗线索的有效性

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Legal and Criminological Psychology Pub Date : 2021-09-17 DOI:10.1111/lcrp.12200

Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij, Charlotte Hudson, Pasquale Capuozzo, Haneen Deeb

{"title":"不同模型语句变体引出信息和欺骗线索的有效性","authors":"Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij, Charlotte Hudson, Pasquale Capuozzo, Haneen Deeb","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>According to previous research, the use of a model statement results in both truth tellers and lie tellers reporting a similar amount of extra information than the instruction to be detailed. We examined (1) whether level of engagement with attending to the model statement affects the veracity findings and (2) whether valuable details is a diagnostic veracity indicator.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We created four model statement variants, two had lower levels of engagement and two had higher levels of engagement with attending to the model statement content. Participants were allocated to one of these four conditions or to the no model statement control condition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Participants in one of the higher engagement conditions recalled the model statement content significantly better than participants in one of the lower engagement conditions. The audio model statement and the face-to-face model statement resulted in more information than the no model statement control condition. In none of the model statement conditions did total details emerge as a veracity indicator; valuable details did not yield the expected effect either.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A model statement serves as an eliciting information tool and the amount of additional information is similar among truth tellers and lie tellers.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12200","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of different model statement variants for eliciting information and cues to deceit\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Leal, Aldert Vrij, Charlotte Hudson, Pasquale Capuozzo, Haneen Deeb\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lcrp.12200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>According to previous research, the use of a model statement results in both truth tellers and lie tellers reporting a similar amount of extra information than the instruction to be detailed. We examined (1) whether level of engagement with attending to the model statement affects the veracity findings and (2) whether valuable details is a diagnostic veracity indicator.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We created four model statement variants, two had lower levels of engagement and two had higher levels of engagement with attending to the model statement content. Participants were allocated to one of these four conditions or to the no model statement control condition.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Participants in one of the higher engagement conditions recalled the model statement content significantly better than participants in one of the lower engagement conditions. The audio model statement and the face-to-face model statement resulted in more information than the no model statement control condition. In none of the model statement conditions did total details emerge as a veracity indicator; valuable details did not yield the expected effect either.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>A model statement serves as an eliciting information tool and the amount of additional information is similar among truth tellers and lie tellers.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12200\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12200\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12200","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

摘要

根据之前的研究，使用模型陈述会导致说真话的人和说假话的人报告的额外信息数量与要求详细说明的指令相似。我们检验了(1)参与模型陈述的程度是否影响准确性发现，(2)有价值的细节是否是诊断性准确性指标。方法:我们创建了四个模型语句变体，其中两个对模型语句内容的参与程度较低，两个对模型语句内容的参与程度较高。参与者被分配到这四种条件之一或无模型语句控制条件。结果高投入条件下的被试对模型语句内容的记忆能力显著优于低投入条件下的被试。音频模型语句和面对面模型语句比无模型语句控制条件产生更多的信息。在所有模型语句条件中，全部细节都没有作为准确性指标出现;有价值的细节也没有产生预期的效果。结论模型陈述是一种诱导信息的工具，真话者和谎言者的附加信息量相似。

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

The effectiveness of different model statement variants for eliciting information and cues to deceit

Background

According to previous research, the use of a model statement results in both truth tellers and lie tellers reporting a similar amount of extra information than the instruction to be detailed. We examined (1) whether level of engagement with attending to the model statement affects the veracity findings and (2) whether valuable details is a diagnostic veracity indicator.

Method

We created four model statement variants, two had lower levels of engagement and two had higher levels of engagement with attending to the model statement content. Participants were allocated to one of these four conditions or to the no model statement control condition.

Results

Participants in one of the higher engagement conditions recalled the model statement content significantly better than participants in one of the lower engagement conditions. The audio model statement and the face-to-face model statement resulted in more information than the no model statement control condition. In none of the model statement conditions did total details emerge as a veracity indicator; valuable details did not yield the expected effect either.

Conclusion

A model statement serves as an eliciting information tool and the amount of additional information is similar among truth tellers and lie tellers.

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

Legal and Criminological Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.