Warmelink Lara, Vrij Aldert, Mann Samantha, Jundi Shyma, Granhag Pär Anders
University of Portsmouth, Psychology Department, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, UK.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Oct;141(2):178-83. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.011. Epub 2012 Sep 8.
In recent years researchers have started to focus on lying about intentions (Granhag, 2010). In the present experiment participants were interviewed about their forthcoming trip. We tested the hypothesis that liars (N=43) compared to truth tellers (N=43) would give fewer details to unexpected questions about planning, transportation and the core event, but an equal amount or more detail to expected questions about the purpose of the trip. We also tested the hypothesis that participants who had previously experienced the intention (i.e., they had made such a trip before) would give more detail than those who had never experienced the intended action. The unexpected question hypothesis was supported, whereas the previous experience effect only emerged in interactions. The benefit of using different types of questions for lie detection purposes is discussed.
近年来，研究人员已开始关注关于意图的说谎行为（格兰哈格，2010年）。在本实验中，我们就即将到来的旅行对参与者进行了访谈。我们检验了以下假设：与说真话者（N = 43）相比，说谎者（N = 43）对于有关计划、交通和核心事件的意外问题会给出更少的细节，但对于有关旅行目的的预期问题会给出等量或更多的细节。我们还检验了以下假设：之前有过相关意图体验的参与者（即他们之前进行过这样的旅行）会比从未有过预期行为体验的参与者给出更多细节。意外问题假设得到了支持，而之前的体验效应仅在互动中出现。本文讨论了使用不同类型问题进行测谎的益处。
