Skip to content
Back to outputs

Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method. / Leal, Sharon; Vrij, Aldert; Deeb, Haneen; Kamermans, Kevin.

In: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 01.09.2019, p. 273-287.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Leal, S, Vrij, A, Deeb, H & Kamermans, K 2019, 'Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method', Legal and Criminological Psychology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12152

APA

Vancouver

Author

Leal, Sharon ; Vrij, Aldert ; Deeb, Haneen ; Kamermans, Kevin. / Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method. In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2019 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 273-287.

Bibtex

@article{1e7cfd5a656e4e17a05beeb7a504fe7d,
title = "Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method",
abstract = "Background: We examined a new method to encourage interviewees to say more, the ghostwriter method, and examined its effect on eliciting information and cues to deceit.Method: A total of 150 truth tellers and liars either told the truth about a trip they made in the last 12 months or pretended to have made such a trip. They were allocated to a Control condition, a {\textquoteleft}Be detailed{\textquoteright} condition in which they were encouraged to report even small details and a ghostwriter condition in which they were told to imagine talking to a ghostwriter. The dependent variables were details, complications, common knowledge details, self‐handicapping strategies, proportion of complications, plausibility, and verifiable sources.Results: The ghostwriter condition elicited more details and revealed in plausibility a stronger cue to deceit than the other two conditions.Conclusion: The ghostwriter method appears to be a promising tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit.",
keywords = "RCUK, ESRC, ES/N009614/1, eliciting information, encouraging interviewees to say more, interviewing to detect deception, proportion of complications, verifiable sources",
author = "Sharon Leal and Aldert Vrij and Haneen Deeb and Kevin Kamermans",
year = "2019",
month = sep,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/lcrp.12152",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "273--287",
journal = "Legal and Criminological Psychology",
issn = "1355-3259",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Encouraging interviewees to say more and deception: the ghostwriter method

AU - Leal, Sharon

AU - Vrij, Aldert

AU - Deeb, Haneen

AU - Kamermans, Kevin

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - Background: We examined a new method to encourage interviewees to say more, the ghostwriter method, and examined its effect on eliciting information and cues to deceit.Method: A total of 150 truth tellers and liars either told the truth about a trip they made in the last 12 months or pretended to have made such a trip. They were allocated to a Control condition, a ‘Be detailed’ condition in which they were encouraged to report even small details and a ghostwriter condition in which they were told to imagine talking to a ghostwriter. The dependent variables were details, complications, common knowledge details, self‐handicapping strategies, proportion of complications, plausibility, and verifiable sources.Results: The ghostwriter condition elicited more details and revealed in plausibility a stronger cue to deceit than the other two conditions.Conclusion: The ghostwriter method appears to be a promising tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit.

AB - Background: We examined a new method to encourage interviewees to say more, the ghostwriter method, and examined its effect on eliciting information and cues to deceit.Method: A total of 150 truth tellers and liars either told the truth about a trip they made in the last 12 months or pretended to have made such a trip. They were allocated to a Control condition, a ‘Be detailed’ condition in which they were encouraged to report even small details and a ghostwriter condition in which they were told to imagine talking to a ghostwriter. The dependent variables were details, complications, common knowledge details, self‐handicapping strategies, proportion of complications, plausibility, and verifiable sources.Results: The ghostwriter condition elicited more details and revealed in plausibility a stronger cue to deceit than the other two conditions.Conclusion: The ghostwriter method appears to be a promising tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit.

KW - RCUK

KW - ESRC

KW - ES/N009614/1

KW - eliciting information

KW - encouraging interviewees to say more

KW - interviewing to detect deception

KW - proportion of complications

KW - verifiable sources

U2 - 10.1111/lcrp.12152

DO - 10.1111/lcrp.12152

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 273

EP - 287

JO - Legal and Criminological Psychology

JF - Legal and Criminological Psychology

SN - 1355-3259

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 13867577