Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Scand J Psychol. 2012 Apr;53(2):103-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00931.x. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
Most research into deception detection in written accounts has been conducted on transcripts instead of written messages, and has focused on identifying valid verbal deception correlates instead of also examining untrained readers' spontaneous lie-detection attempts (accuracy rates, the cues they use, and so on). Also, the question of whether good liars are also good detectors has not been examined using written accounts. In Study 1, 78 participants handwrote a story and then judged the veracity of another participant's story. Accuracy was at chance level. Good liars were not better detectors than poor liars, but participants who thought they were good liars also thought they were good detectors. The higher the participants' fluidity scores on a standardized test, the poorer liars they were and the better liars they thought they were. The cues participants said they used were related to their judgments but unrelated to actual veracity. In Study 2, some Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) categories (with the Spanish-language dictionary) permitted a 68% classification rate of the written accounts of Study 1.
大多数关于书面叙述中欺骗检测的研究都是在转录本上进行的，而不是书面信息，并且侧重于识别有效的口头欺骗相关因素，而不是检查未经训练的读者的自发谎言检测尝试（准确率、他们使用的线索等）。此外，使用书面叙述来检查是否好的说谎者也是好的检测者的问题尚未得到研究。在研究 1 中，78 名参与者手写了一个故事，然后判断另一名参与者故事的真实性。准确率为随机水平。好的说谎者并不比差的说谎者更好的检测者，但认为自己是好说谎者的参与者也认为自己是好的检测者。在标准化测试中，参与者的流畅性得分越高，他们说谎的次数就越少，他们认为自己的谎言就越真实。参与者所说的他们使用的线索与他们的判断有关，但与实际真实性无关。在研究 2 中，一些语言调查和词汇计数（LIWC）类别（带有西班牙语词典）允许对研究 1 的书面叙述进行 68%的分类率。
