Dando Coral J, Taylor Paul J, Sandham Alexandra L
Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Front Psychol. 2023 May 30;14:1152904. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1152904. eCollection 2023.
The verbal deception literature is largely based upon North American and Western European monolingual English speaker interactions. This paper extends this literature by comparing the verbal behaviors of 88 south Asian bilinguals, conversing in either first (Hindi) or second (English) languages, and 48 British monolinguals conversing in English.
All participated in a live event following which they were interviewed having been incentivized to be either deceptive or truthful. Event details, complications, verifiable sources, and plausibility ratings were analyzed as a function of veracity, language and culture.
Main effects revealed cross cultural similarities in both first and second language interviews whereby all liar's verbal responses were impoverished and rated as less plausible than truthtellers. However, a series of cross-cultural interactions emerged whereby bi-lingual South Asian truthtellers and liars interviewed in first and second languages exhibited varying patterns of verbal behaviors, differences that have the potential to trigger erroneous assessments in practice.
Despite limitations, including concerns centered on the reductionary nature of deception research, our results highlight that while cultural context is important, impoverished, simple verbal accounts should trigger a 'red flag' for further attention irrespective of culture or interview language, since the cognitive load typically associated with formulating a deceptive account apparently emerges in a broadly similar manner.
关于言语欺骗的文献主要基于北美和西欧以英语为母语的单语者之间的互动。本文通过比较88名南亚双语者(用母语(印地语)或第二语言(英语)交谈)和48名以英语为母语的英国单语者的言语行为,对这一文献进行了拓展。
所有人都参与了一个现场活动,之后在受到激励要表现出欺骗或诚实的情况下接受访谈。对事件细节、复杂情况、可核实来源和可信度评级进行了分析,作为真实性、语言和文化的函数。
主要效应揭示了在第一语言和第二语言访谈中的跨文化相似性,即所有说谎者的言语反应都很贫乏,且被评为比说真话者的可信度更低。然而,出现了一系列跨文化互动,即接受第一语言和第二语言访谈的南亚双语说真话者和说谎者表现出不同的言语行为模式,这些差异有可能在实际中引发错误评估。
尽管存在局限性,包括对欺骗研究的简化性质的担忧,但我们的结果突出表明,虽然文化背景很重要,但无论文化或访谈语言如何,贫乏、简单的言语陈述都应引发“警示信号”,以引起进一步关注,因为通常与编造欺骗性陈述相关的认知负荷显然以大致相似的方式出现。