In my opinion you are wrong! Adding a Model Statement to the Devil’s Advocate Approach to detect true and false opinions

We examined the Devil’s Advocate Approach in combination with a Model Statement. Participants (N = 170) expressed their true or false opinions about a societal issue. They explained the reasons why they have a certain opinion (eliciting-opinion request), followed by reasons that go against their opinion (devil’s advocate request). Half of the participants listened prior to these requests to a Model Statement in which someone argued eloquently about another topic than the topic the participant discussed. We expected truth tellers compared to lie tellers to show more passion and to sound more eloquent and less predictable when answering the eliciting-opinion request. Less pronounced differences were expected in answering the devil’s advocate request, resulting in larger differences in responding to the two requests in truth tellers than in lie tellers. The Model Statement was expected to accentuate these effects. The hypotheses were supported particularly for eloquence and passion.