Granhag P A, Strömwall L A
Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Sweden.
J Psychol. 2001 Nov;135(6):603-20. doi: 10.1080/00223980109603723.
This study is an examination of two forensically important but previously neglected issues in interpersonal deception. First, which cues do lie catchers-who have access to repeated interrogations-pay attention to in order to detect deception? Second, do face-to-face interacting interrogators differ from noninteracting observers in terms of how they perceive a suspect? After watching a staged event, 24 suspects (12 liars and 12 truth tellers) were interrogated three times over a period of 11 days. After the final interrogation, the veracity of each suspect was assessed by his or her interrogator and by 6 observers who had watched the interrogations on video only. The results of the experiment showed that consistency over time was by far the most commonly used cue for justifying veracity judgments. Critically, the predictive accuracy for this cue was alarmingly low. As opposed to results from previous research, the interrogators used verbal cues to a significantly greater extent than did the observers. Furthermore, a probing effect was shown (i.e., probed suspects were perceived as significantly more honest than nonprobed suspects). Finally, limited support for a previously reported honesty effect was obtained (i.e., that interrogators perceive suspects to be more honest than do observers).
本研究考察了人际欺骗中两个在法医学上很重要但此前被忽视的问题。第一，能够进行反复讯问的测谎者为了察觉欺骗会关注哪些线索？第二，面对面互动的讯问者与非互动的观察者在对嫌疑人的认知方式上是否存在差异？在观看了一场 staged 事件后，24 名嫌疑人（12 名说谎者和 12 名说真话者）在 11 天内接受了三次讯问。在最后一次讯问后，每位嫌疑人的真实性由其讯问者以及 6 名仅通过视频观看了讯问过程的观察者进行评估。实验结果表明，随着时间推移的一致性是迄今为止用于证明真实性判断的最常用线索。至关重要的是，该线索的预测准确性低得惊人。与先前研究的结果相反，讯问者比观察者更频繁地使用言语线索。此外，还显示出一种探查效应（即，接受探查的嫌疑人被认为比未接受探查的嫌疑人明显更诚实）。最后，获得了对先前报道的诚实效应的有限支持（即，讯问者比观察者认为嫌疑人更诚实）。
