Case‐relevant vs. case‐irrelevant questioning in experimental lie detection

Abstract

Observers (N = 121) judged the veracity of four communicators. Before making veracity judgments, observers viewed one of three baseline interview segments for each communicator: (1) a case‐relevant segment, (2) a case‐irrelevant segment, or (3) both case‐relevant and irrelevant segments. Observers were also cued to use one of three judgmental priming cues while making their veracity attribution. Specifically, observers were instructed to pay close attention to another's: (1) verbal message (plausibility), (2) nonverbal message, or (3) nervousness. A fourth control group of observers were not cued to use any specific cue while watching the videotapes. It was predicted that observers watching a case‐relevant baseline interview would detect deception more accurately than observers watching a case‐irrelevant baseline interview. Results indicated that individuals who viewed a case‐relevant baseline segment before judging deception were more accurate than individuals who viewed a case‐irrelevant baseline segment. Accuracy rates did not differ, however, as a function of global priming cue.