Cargando…

Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews

Most deception scholars agree that deception production and deception detection effects often display mixed results across settings. For example, some liars use more emotion than truth-tellers when discussing fake opinions on abortion, but not when communicating fake distress. Similarly, verbal and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Markowitz, David M., Hancock, Jeffrey T., Woodworth, Michael T., Ely, Maxwell
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9941173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36824303
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134052
_version_ 1784891229616472064
author Markowitz, David M.
Hancock, Jeffrey T.
Woodworth, Michael T.
Ely, Maxwell
author_facet Markowitz, David M.
Hancock, Jeffrey T.
Woodworth, Michael T.
Ely, Maxwell
author_sort Markowitz, David M.
collection PubMed
description Most deception scholars agree that deception production and deception detection effects often display mixed results across settings. For example, some liars use more emotion than truth-tellers when discussing fake opinions on abortion, but not when communicating fake distress. Similarly, verbal and nonverbal cues are often inconsistent predictors to assist in deception detection, leading to mixed accuracies and detection rates. Why are lie production and detection effects typically inconsistent? In this piece, we argue that aspects of the context are often unconsidered in how lies are produced and detected. Greater theory-building related to contextual constraints of deception are therefore required. We reintroduce and extend the Contextual Organization of Language and Deception (COLD) model, a framework that outlines how psychological dynamics, pragmatic goals, and genre conventions are aspects of the context that moderate the relationship between deception and communication behavior such as language. We extend this foundation by proposing three additional aspects of the context — individual differences, situational opportunities for deception, and interpersonal characteristics — for the COLD model that can specifically inform and potentially improve forensic interviewing. We conclude with a forward-looking perspective for deception researchers and practitioners related to the need for more theoretical explication of deception and its detection related to the context.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9941173
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99411732023-02-22 Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews Markowitz, David M. Hancock, Jeffrey T. Woodworth, Michael T. Ely, Maxwell Front Psychol Psychology Most deception scholars agree that deception production and deception detection effects often display mixed results across settings. For example, some liars use more emotion than truth-tellers when discussing fake opinions on abortion, but not when communicating fake distress. Similarly, verbal and nonverbal cues are often inconsistent predictors to assist in deception detection, leading to mixed accuracies and detection rates. Why are lie production and detection effects typically inconsistent? In this piece, we argue that aspects of the context are often unconsidered in how lies are produced and detected. Greater theory-building related to contextual constraints of deception are therefore required. We reintroduce and extend the Contextual Organization of Language and Deception (COLD) model, a framework that outlines how psychological dynamics, pragmatic goals, and genre conventions are aspects of the context that moderate the relationship between deception and communication behavior such as language. We extend this foundation by proposing three additional aspects of the context — individual differences, situational opportunities for deception, and interpersonal characteristics — for the COLD model that can specifically inform and potentially improve forensic interviewing. We conclude with a forward-looking perspective for deception researchers and practitioners related to the need for more theoretical explication of deception and its detection related to the context. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9941173/ /pubmed/36824303 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134052 Text en Copyright © 2023 Markowitz, Hancock, Woodworth and Ely. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Markowitz, David M.
Hancock, Jeffrey T.
Woodworth, Michael T.
Ely, Maxwell
Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title_full Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title_fullStr Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title_full_unstemmed Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title_short Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
title_sort contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9941173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36824303
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134052
work_keys_str_mv AT markowitzdavidm contextualconsiderationsfordeceptionproductionanddetectioninforensicinterviews
AT hancockjeffreyt contextualconsiderationsfordeceptionproductionanddetectioninforensicinterviews
AT woodworthmichaelt contextualconsiderationsfordeceptionproductionanddetectioninforensicinterviews
AT elymaxwell contextualconsiderationsfordeceptionproductionanddetectioninforensicinterviews