Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
Published on: May 3, 2016
Assessing lying about opinions through extending the devil's advocate interview protocol with a same example
Sharon Leal1, Aldert Vrij1, Haneen Deeb1
1School of Psychology, Sport & Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, UK.
None:
The devil's advocate interview protocol is a method to detect lies about opinions. Interviewees are asked to provide reasons that support their opinion (eliciting opinion request) and reasons that oppose their opinion (devil's advocate request). Truth tellers are expected to be more eloquent, passionate and less predictable than lie tellers in responding to the eliciting opinion request. The difference in eloquence, passion and predictability between the two requests is expected to be more pronounced in truth tellers than in lie tellers. In the present experiment we examined whether adding a same example statement to the protocol would increase the ability to distinguish between truth tellers and lie tellers. In the same example statement condition, participants watched an example in which someone eloquently expressed their opinion about the same topic and opinion that the interviewee was going to discuss in the interview. We predicted the same example model statement to enhance the efficacy of the devil's advocate interview protocol. A total of 171 truth tellers and lie tellers expressed their true opinions or false opinions about societal issues (e.g. covid vaccinations). Half of them watched a same opinion statement. The hypotheses were supported for eloquence and passion.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Self-Presentation: Self-Monitoring and Self-Handicapping
Confirmation Biases
Strategies of Self-Presentation II: Self-Verification
Impression Management Techniques III: Aligning Actions
Understanding Deception

