TY - JOUR
T1 - Introducing the high-context communication style interview protocol to detect deception in pairs
AU - Leal, Sharon
AU - Vrij, Aldert
AU - Ashkenazi, Tzachi
AU - Vernham, Zarah
AU - Fisher, Ronald P.
AU - Palena, Nicola
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - In four experiments, we examined whether pairs of truth tellers could be distinguished from pairs of lie tellers by taking advantage of the fact that only pairs of truth tellers can refer to shared events by using brief expressions (high-context communication style). In Experiments 1 and 2, pairs of friends and pairs of strangers pretending to be friends answered (i) questions they likely had expected to be asked (e.g., ‘How did you first meet’?) and (ii) unexpected questions (e.g., ‘First, describe a shared event in a few words. Then elaborate on it’). Pairs were interviewed individually (Experiment 1, N = 134 individuals) or collectively (Experiment 2, N = 130 individuals). Transcripts were coded for the verbal cues details, complications, plausibility, predictability, and overlap (Experiment 1 only) or repetitions (Experiment 2 only). In two lie detection experiments observers read the individual transcripts in Experiment 3 (N = 146) or the collective transcripts in Experiment 4 (N = 138). The verbal cues were more diagnostic of veracity and observers were better at distinguishing between truths and lies in the unexpected than in the expected questions condition, but only when the pair members were interviewed individually.
AB - In four experiments, we examined whether pairs of truth tellers could be distinguished from pairs of lie tellers by taking advantage of the fact that only pairs of truth tellers can refer to shared events by using brief expressions (high-context communication style). In Experiments 1 and 2, pairs of friends and pairs of strangers pretending to be friends answered (i) questions they likely had expected to be asked (e.g., ‘How did you first meet’?) and (ii) unexpected questions (e.g., ‘First, describe a shared event in a few words. Then elaborate on it’). Pairs were interviewed individually (Experiment 1, N = 134 individuals) or collectively (Experiment 2, N = 130 individuals). Transcripts were coded for the verbal cues details, complications, plausibility, predictability, and overlap (Experiment 1 only) or repetitions (Experiment 2 only). In two lie detection experiments observers read the individual transcripts in Experiment 3 (N = 146) or the collective transcripts in Experiment 4 (N = 138). The verbal cues were more diagnostic of veracity and observers were better at distinguishing between truths and lies in the unexpected than in the expected questions condition, but only when the pair members were interviewed individually.
KW - Deception
KW - High-context communication
KW - Lie detection
KW - Unexpected questions approach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201504973&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104440
DO - 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104440
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 39167909
AN - SCOPUS:85201504973
SN - 0001-6918
VL - 249
JO - Acta Psychologica
JF - Acta Psychologica
M1 - 104440
ER -