Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample?
Deception research has shown that analysing verbal content can be effective to distinguish between truths and lies. However, most verbal cues are cues to truthfulness (truth tellers report the cue more than lie tellers), whereas cues to deception (lie tellers report the cue more than truth tellers)...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128194/full |
| _version_ | 1797838949486428160 |
|---|---|
| author | Letizia Caso Lucrezia Cavagnis Aldert Vrij Nicola Palena |
| author_facet | Letizia Caso Lucrezia Cavagnis Aldert Vrij Nicola Palena |
| author_sort | Letizia Caso |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Deception research has shown that analysing verbal content can be effective to distinguish between truths and lies. However, most verbal cues are cues to truthfulness (truth tellers report the cue more than lie tellers), whereas cues to deception (lie tellers report the cue more than truth tellers) are largely absent. The complication approach, measuring complications (cue to truthfulness), common knowledge details (cue to deception), self-handicapping strategies (cue to deception), and the ratio of complications, aims to fill this gap in the literature. The present experiment examined the effectiveness of the complication approach when varying the amount of lying, with an Italian sample. Seventy-eight participants were assigned to one of three different experimental conditions: Truth tellers (telling the truth about the event), embedders (providing a mixture of truthful and false information) and outright lie tellers (providing false information). Participants were interviewed about a past experience concerning an out of the ordinary event. Complications discriminated truth tellers from lie tellers. The absence of significant effects for common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:49:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fa92535381bf4f63ae5cb28b40cb5cb5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:49:07Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-fa92535381bf4f63ae5cb28b40cb5cb52023-04-26T14:49:18ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782023-04-011410.3389/fpsyg.2023.11281941128194Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample?Letizia Caso0Lucrezia Cavagnis1Aldert Vrij2Nicola Palena3Department of Human Sciences, Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta, Rome, Lazio, ItalyDepartment of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Lombardy, ItalyDepartment of Psychology, University of Portsmouth,, Portsmouth, United KingdomDepartment of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Lombardy, ItalyDeception research has shown that analysing verbal content can be effective to distinguish between truths and lies. However, most verbal cues are cues to truthfulness (truth tellers report the cue more than lie tellers), whereas cues to deception (lie tellers report the cue more than truth tellers) are largely absent. The complication approach, measuring complications (cue to truthfulness), common knowledge details (cue to deception), self-handicapping strategies (cue to deception), and the ratio of complications, aims to fill this gap in the literature. The present experiment examined the effectiveness of the complication approach when varying the amount of lying, with an Italian sample. Seventy-eight participants were assigned to one of three different experimental conditions: Truth tellers (telling the truth about the event), embedders (providing a mixture of truthful and false information) and outright lie tellers (providing false information). Participants were interviewed about a past experience concerning an out of the ordinary event. Complications discriminated truth tellers from lie tellers. The absence of significant effects for common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128194/fullcomplicationscommon-knowledge detailsself-handicapping strategieslyingverbal cues to deception |
| spellingShingle | Letizia Caso Lucrezia Cavagnis Aldert Vrij Nicola Palena Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? Frontiers in Psychology complications common-knowledge details self-handicapping strategies lying verbal cues to deception |
| title | Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? |
| title_full | Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? |
| title_fullStr | Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? |
| title_short | Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample? |
| title_sort | cues to deception can complications common knowledge details and self handicapping strategies discriminate between truths embedded lies and outright lies in an italian speaking sample |
| topic | complications common-knowledge details self-handicapping strategies lying verbal cues to deception |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128194/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT letiziacaso cuestodeceptioncancomplicationscommonknowledgedetailsandselfhandicappingstrategiesdiscriminatebetweentruthsembeddedliesandoutrightliesinanitalianspeakingsample AT lucreziacavagnis cuestodeceptioncancomplicationscommonknowledgedetailsandselfhandicappingstrategiesdiscriminatebetweentruthsembeddedliesandoutrightliesinanitalianspeakingsample AT aldertvrij cuestodeceptioncancomplicationscommonknowledgedetailsandselfhandicappingstrategiesdiscriminatebetweentruthsembeddedliesandoutrightliesinanitalianspeakingsample AT nicolapalena cuestodeceptioncancomplicationscommonknowledgedetailsandselfhandicappingstrategiesdiscriminatebetweentruthsembeddedliesandoutrightliesinanitalianspeakingsample |