Suppr超能文献

小群体中的欺骗检测:文献综述

Detecting Deception within Small Groups: A Literature Review.

作者信息

Vernham Zarah, Granhag Pär-Anders, Giolla Erik M

机构信息

Psychology, University of Portsmouth Portsmouth, UK.

Psychology, University of GothenburgGothenburg, Sweden; Norwegian Police University CollegeOslo, Norway; Psychology, University of OsloOslo, Norway.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 30;7:1012. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01012. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

Investigators often have multiple suspects to interview in order to determine whether they are guilty or innocent of a crime. Nevertheless, co-offending has been significantly neglected within the deception detection literature. The current review is the first of its kind to discuss co-offending and the importance of examining the detection of deception within groups. Groups of suspects can be interviewed separately (individual interviewing) or simultaneously (collective interviewing) and these differing interviewing styles are assessed throughout the review. The review emphasizes the differences between lone individuals and groups. It focuses on the theoretical implications of group deceit and the reasons why groups need to be understood in terms of investigative interviewing and deception detection if all types of crime-related incidents are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately. Group strategies, consistency within- and between-statements, joint memory, and group dynamics are referred to throughout the review and the importance of developing interview protocols specifically for groups is discussed. The review concludes by identifying the gaps in the literature and suggesting ideas for future research, highlighting that more research is required if we are to obtain a true understanding of the deception occurring within groups and how best to detect it.

摘要

调查人员常常需要对多名嫌疑人进行询问,以确定他们是否有罪。然而,在欺骗检测文献中,共同犯罪问题一直被严重忽视。当前这篇综述是同类文章中第一篇探讨共同犯罪以及研究群体内欺骗检测重要性的文章。嫌疑人组可以分别接受询问(单独询问)或同时接受询问(集体询问),在这篇综述中会对这两种不同的询问方式进行评估。该综述强调了单独个体与群体之间的差异。它聚焦于群体欺骗的理论意义,以及如果要识别并妥善处理各类与犯罪相关的事件,为何需要从调查询问和欺骗检测的角度来理解群体。在整个综述中会提及群体策略、陈述内部及之间的一致性、共同记忆和群体动态,并讨论专门为群体制定询问方案的重要性。综述最后指出了文献中的空白,并提出了未来研究的思路,强调如果我们要真正理解群体内发生的欺骗行为以及如何最好地检测它,还需要更多的研究。

相似文献

1
Detecting Deception within Small Groups: A Literature Review.小群体中的欺骗检测:文献综述
Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 30;7:1012. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01012. eCollection 2016.
5
Attentional Avoidance for Guilty Knowledge Among Deceptive Individuals.欺骗者对有罪知识的注意回避。
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 12;10:114. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00114. eCollection 2019.
10
Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations.从小组讨论中的言语线索中察觉潜在动机。
Front Psychol. 2023 May 24;14:1166225. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1166225. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection.非言语和言语测谎中的陷阱与机遇
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2010 Dec;11(3):89-121. doi: 10.1177/1529100610390861.
2
Collaborative Memory: Cognitive Research and Theory.协作记忆:认知研究与理论。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Nov;5(6):649-63. doi: 10.1177/1745691610388763.
3
The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues.《供认的心理学:文献回顾与问题探讨》。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2004 Nov;5(2):33-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x. Epub 2004 Nov 1.
4
The source of the truth bias: Heuristic processing?真相偏差的来源:启发式加工?
Scand J Psychol. 2015 Jun;56(3):254-63. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12204. Epub 2015 Feb 23.
7
The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions.问题预期性和经验对意图说谎的影响。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Oct;141(2):178-83. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.011. Epub 2012 Sep 8.
8
Social indicators of deception.欺骗的社会指标。
Hum Factors. 2012 Aug;54(4):577-88. doi: 10.1177/0018720812446338.
10
False memories and confabulation.虚假记忆和虚构
Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Apr 1;2(4):137-45. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01152-8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验