Research has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self‐report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self‐report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self‐report what influences their decision‐making. Using a within‐subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues. Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between‐subject consistency in the same way. A lens model showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||Applied Cognitive Psychology|
|Early online date||20 Apr 2020|
|Publication status||Published - 2 Sep 2020|
- investigating interviewing
- lens model
- veracity judgements
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: a lens model examination of consistency and deception'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Dataset for 'Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: a lens model examination of consistency and deception'.
Hudson, C. (Creator), Vrij, A. (Creator), Akehurst, L. (Creator), Hope, L. (Creator) & Satchell, L. (Creator), Open Science Framework, 20 Apr 2020
DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3DWUB, https://osf.io/3dwub/