No evidence that instructions to ignore nonverbal cues improve deception detection accuracy

被引:2
|
作者
Bogaard, Glynis [1 ]
Meijer, Ewout H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Sect Forens Psychol, Dept Clin Psychol Sci, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
credibility; instructions; lie detection; nonverbal cues; verbal cues; POLICE OFFICERS; LIE DETECTION; BELIEFS; CREDIBILITY; JUDGMENTS; IMPACT; INFORMATION; STATEMENTS; ABILITY; TRUTH;
D O I
10.1002/acp.3950
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Research has consistently shown people predominantly rely on undiagnostic nonverbal cues when detecting deceit, whereas verbal cues are more accurate. In three experiments, we investigated whether the simple instruction not to focus on nonverbal cues would make people focus more on diagnostic verbal cues and hence more accurate in detecting lies. Participants judged the veracity of true and deceptive statements and either received (1) no instruction, (2) the instruction to ignore nonverbal cues, or (3) to ignore nonverbal cues and focus on verbal cues instead. In the second and third experiments, condition 3 was changed to an audio condition in which visual cues were inaccessible. Results showed no effect of instruction on lie detection performance. Overall, we found no evidence that the simple instruction not to focus on nonverbal cues while judging veracity is an effective strategy to make people focus more on verbal cues or to improve lie detection.
引用
收藏
页码:636 / 647
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF ACCURACY OF DETECTION OF DECEPTION - REPLY
    RASKIN, DC
    PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 1978, 15 (02) : 143 - 147
  • [42] Content in Context Improves Deception Detection Accuracy
    Blair, J. Pete
    Levine, Timothy R.
    Shaw, Allison S.
    HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2010, 36 (03) : 423 - 442
  • [43] Feature instructions improve face-matching accuracy
    Megreya, Ahmed M.
    Bindemann, Markus
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (03):
  • [44] MultiModal Deception Detection: Accuracy, Applicability and Generalizability
    Belavadi, Vibha
    Zhou, Yan
    Bakdash, Jonathan Z.
    Kantarcioglu, Murat
    Krawczyk, Daniel C.
    Nguyen, Linda
    Rakic, Jelena
    Thuriasingham, Bhavani
    2020 SECOND IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRUST, PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS (TPS-ISA 2020), 2020, : 99 - 106
  • [45] A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments
    Park, HS
    Levine, TR
    COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, 2001, 68 (02) : 201 - 210
  • [46] Increasing Deception Detection Accuracy with Strategic Questioning
    Levine, Timothy R.
    Shaw, Allison
    Shulman, Hillary C.
    HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2010, 36 (02) : 216 - +
  • [47] MEPROBAMATE REDUCES ACCURACY OF PHYSIOLOGICAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION
    WAID, WM
    ORNE, EC
    COOK, MR
    ORNE, MT
    SCIENCE, 1981, 212 (4490) : 71 - 73
  • [48] Strong, but Wrong: Lay People's and Police Officers' Beliefs about Verbal and Nonverbal Cues to Deception
    Bogaard, Glynis
    Meijer, Ewout H.
    Vrij, Aldert
    Merckelbach, Harald
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (06):
  • [49] LieToMe: An Ensemble Approach for Deception Detection from Facial Cues
    Avola, Danilo
    Cascio, Marco
    Cinque, Luigi
    Fagioli, Alessio
    Foresti, Gian Luca
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEURAL SYSTEMS, 2021, 31 (02)
  • [50] Misleading cues, misplaced confidence: An analysis of deception detection patterns
    Davis M.
    Markus K.A.
    American Journal of Dance Therapy, 2006, 28 (2) : 107 - 126