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 todeception (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 selfhandicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed.

(2023). 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? [journal article - articolo]. In FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10446/243509

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?

Cavagnis, Lucrezia;Palena, Nicola
2023-01-01

Abstract

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 todeception (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 selfhandicapping strategies, the limitations of the experiment and suggestions for future research are discussed.
articolo
2023
Caso, Letizia; Cavagnis, Lucrezia; Vrij, Aldert; Palena, Nicola
(2023). 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? [journal article - articolo]. In FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10446/243509
File allegato/i alla scheda:
File Dimensione del file Formato  
fpsyg-14-1128194.pdf

accesso aperto

Versione: publisher's version - versione editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione del file 333.28 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
333.28 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Aisberg ©2008 Servizi bibliotecari, Università degli studi di Bergamo | Terms of use/Condizioni di utilizzo

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10446/243509
Citazioni
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact