The Devil's Advocate approach: an interview technique for assessing consistency among deceptive and truth-telling pairs of suspects
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
Method - Forty-nine pairs of participants were matched, based on their strong opinions about a controversial topic, and were asked to either tell the truth or lie about their opinions to an interviewer. Pair members were permitted to prepare for the interview together. Each participant was interviewed individually with the devil's advocate approach.
Results - Prepared truth-telling pairs were more consistent with each other in response to the opinion-eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. However, and as predicted, deceptive pairs were equally consistent with each other in response to both questions.
Conclusions - The Devil's Advocate approach seems to be a promising interview technique for assessing consistency among pairs who hold false opinions and pairs who hold true opinions. It also has implications for the consistency heuristic as consistency is not diagnostic of deception or honesty unless the interview technique is taken into consideration.
|Journal||Legal and Criminological Psychology|
|Early online date||28 Aug 2017|
|State||Published - 1 Feb 2018|
- The Devil's Advocate approach
Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A. and Strömwall, L. A. (2017), The Devil's Advocate approach: An interview technique for assessing consistency among deceptive and truth-telling pairs of suspects. Leg Crim Psychol., which has been published in final form at 10.1111/lcrp.12114. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 540 KB, PDF-document