All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about protester actions

References

• Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport- Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilarino, M. (2016). Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2022). Deception detecting using comparable truth baselines. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 29, 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2030334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Nußbaum, M., Schlaudt, L. S., Meijer, E., Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2022). A comparable truth baseline improves truth/lie discrimination. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(5), 1060–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2013). Counter-interrogation strategies when anticipating questions on intentions. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., & Fede, J. (2013). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception: An example of the new paradigm of differential recall enhancement. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.) Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 259–292). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5547-9_11
   Google Scholar
• Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Michlik, P. M. (2006). Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24, 31–38. https://digitalcommons.daemen.edu/faculty_scholar/366.
   Google Scholar
• Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 703–729.
   Google Scholar
• Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Granhag, P. A., & Lancaster, G. (2017). Suspects’ consistency in statements concerning two events when different request formats are used. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2018). The Devil’s Advocate approach: An interview technique for assessing consistency among deceptive and truth-telling pairs of suspects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Fallon, M., Mann, S., Luther, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2022). Mapping details to elicit information and cues to deceit: The effects of map richness. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 14(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2022a2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, H., Ward, V., Wilford, G. (2019). London Bridge attacker was poster boy for rehab scheme he targeted. The Daily Telegraph, Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/01/london-bridge-attacker-poster-boy-rehab-scheme-targeted/
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D. A. (2013). Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research and theory. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.) Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 173–190). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gancedo, Y., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., Vilariño, M., & Arce, R. (2021). Reality monitoring: A meta-analytical review for forensic practice. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701645181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2022). Strategic use of evidence (SUE): A review of the technique and its principles. In G. Oxburgh, T. Myklebust, M. Fallon & M. Hartwig (Eds.), Interviewing and interrogation: A review of research and practice since World War II. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1–36). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 13(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600750264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003020010
   Google Scholar
• Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient Alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Sugden, R. (2001). Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision, 50(1), 59–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005296023424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2014). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548678
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Torkildson-Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X44936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
   Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrija, A., Deeb, H., Dabrowna, O., & Fisher, R. P. (2023). Combining the Devil’s Advocate Approach and Verifiability Approach to assess veracity in opinion statements. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 15(2), 53–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Fisher, R. P. (2023). Interviewing to detect omission lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2010). Detecting true and false opinions: The Devil’s Advocate approach as a lie detection aid. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02041.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, S., Vrij, A., Deeb, H., & Leal, S. (2022). Actions speak louder than words: The Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol in opinions about protester actions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(4), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G. (2019). Verifiability approach: Applications in different judgmental settings. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 213–225). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Ashkenazi, T., Fisher, R. P., Granhag, P. A., Hershkowitz, I., Masip, J., Meijer, E. H., Nisin, Z., Sarid, N., Taylor, P. J., Verschuere, B., & Vrij, A. (2019). Language of lies: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisin, Z., Nahari, G., & Goldsmith, M. (2022). Lies divorced from context: Evidence for Context Embedded Perception (CEP) as a feasible measure for deception detection. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2022, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2078825
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S., Manzanero, A. L., & Masip, J. (2021). Optimizing CBCA and RM research: Recommendations for analyzing and reporting data on content cues to deception. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 27(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1757097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palena, N., Caso, L., Vrij, A., & Orthey, R. (2018). Detecting deception through small talk and comparable truth baselines. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2003). The illusion of transparency and the alleviation of speech anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_10
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.) John Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-51624-9.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2022). The effects of a secondary task on true and false opinion statements. International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis, 7, 185. https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-3867/2022/185
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Deeb, H., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., & Fisher, R. P. (2021). Plausibility: A verbal cue to veracity worth examining? The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Leal, S. (2023). How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law, 30(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2035842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Ashkenazi, T., Ganis, G., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2022). Verbal lie detection: Its past, present and future. Brain Sciences, 12(12), 1644. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2021). Combining verbal veracity assessment techniques to distinguish truth tellers from lie tellers. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2010). Getting into the minds of pairs of liars and truth tellers: An examination of their strategies. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010017
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Palena, N., Leal, S., & Caso, L. (2021). The relationship between complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and veracity: A meta-analysis. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar