Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025

Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex to Experimentally Reduce Ideological Threat Responses
Published on: September 28, 2018
All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil's Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about
Samantha Mann1, Aldert Vrij1, Haneen Deeb1
1Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract:
We examined the Devil's Advocate lie detection method which is aimed at detecting lying about opinions. In this approach, participants give reasons for why they hold an opinion in the eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their opinion in a devil's advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported their true opinion about protestor actions, whereas lie tellers (n = 55) reported the opposite of their true opinion. Answers were coded for number of arguments and plausibility, immediacy, clarity and scriptedness. Data were analysed with analyses of variance with veracity being the sole factor. Supporting the hypothesis, truth tellers provided more pro-arguments than lie tellers and to all eliciting-opinion questions their answers sounded more plausible, immediate and clear than lie tellers' answers. The opposite pattern was predicted for the devil's advocate question but not found, likely caused by the simplification of the question. Neither was being scripted a diagnostic veracity indicator.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Milgram's Obedience to Authority
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Groupthink
Confirmation Biases
Naturalistic Observations
Social Proof

