예상치 못한 질문을 통해 효과적인 거짓말 탐지가 가능하다고 알려져 있으나 최근 거짓말 판별에 사용되고 있는 확인 가능한 사실(verifiable details)에 있어 예상치 못한 질문의 효과를 검증한 연구는 많지 않다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 예상치 못한 질문이 진실 진술자와 거짓 진술자가 언급하는 세부정보의 양과 확인 가능한 사실의 수에 미치는 효과를 확인하고자 하였다. 진실 조건의 참가자(40명)는 교내의 카페에 다녀왔고, 거짓 조건의 참가자(40명)는 정해진 장소에서 준비된 과제를 수행한 뒤 카페에 다녀왔다고 거짓말을 하였다. 모든 참가자는 면담에서 2개의 예상한 질문(‘자세히 말하기’, ‘장소 묘사’)과 2개의 예상치 못한 질문(‘거꾸로 말하기’, ‘증명 요구’)에 답하였다. 종속변인은 세부정보의 양과 확인 가능한 사실의 개수였다. 그 결과, 질문 유형과는 관계없이 진실 진술자가 거짓 진술자보다 유의미하게 더 많은 세부정보를 말하였다. 확인 가능한 사실의 개수에 있어서는 진실 진술자와 거짓 진술자 간의 유의미한 차이는 없었다. 그리고 세부정보의 양(71.3%)이 확인 가능한 사실의 수(53.8%)보다 더 정확하게 진실 진술자와 거짓 진술자를 판별하였다. 또한, 거짓 진술자들은 ‘자세히 말하기’ 질문에 비해 ‘증명 요구’ 질문을 받았을 때 더 많은 단어를 말하였으나 세부정보는 더 많이 언급하지 못하였다. 마지막으로 본 연구의 의의와 한계에 대해 논의하였으며 향후 연구 방향에 대해 제언하였다.
This study was to test the effects of unanticipated questions on the number of general and verifiable details. In addition, the number of verifiable details would discriminate truth-tellers and liars more accurately than the number of general details. In a 2(Veracity: truth vs. lie) X 2(Question type: Expected questions vs. Unexpected questions) mixed-design study, truth tellers(N=40) were asked to visit a cafe on campus and liars(N=40) were told to fabricated a story as if they visited the cafe. Then, participants were interviewed about their trip to the cafe and asked four questions(two anticipated questions: ‘report the trip in detail’, ‘describe the place’; two unanticipated questions: ‘recall in reverse order’, ‘report verifiable details’). Each participant’s statements were transcribed and coded by trained graduate students for the number of general details and verifiable details. The results showed that truth-tellers mentioned significantly more general details than liars regardless of the question type. On the contrary, there was no significant difference between liars and truth-tellers in the number of verifiable details. High percentages of truth-tellers(62.5%) and liars(80.0%) were classified correctly based on the number of general details whereas only 45.0% of truth tellers and 62.5% of liars were accurately classified by the number of verifiable details. Liars were found to speak more words when asked to provide verifiable details compared to a general open question, but the number of general details did not seem to increase accordingly. The limitations of this study and future research directions were discussed.
조은경. (2002). 거짓말의 특징과 탐지. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 21(2), 33-65.
Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 461-471.
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151- 163.
Boskovic, I., Bogaard, G., Merckelbach, H., Vrij, A., & Hope, L. (2017). The Verifiability Approach to detection of malingered physical symptoms. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(8), 717-729.
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication theory, 6(3), 203-242.
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(2), 155-184.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?. American Psychologist, 46(9), 913.
Granhag, P. A., Andersson, L. O., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(1), 103-119.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 213-227.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Andersson, L. O. (2004). Suspicious minds: criminals’ability to detect deception. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(1), 83-95.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3(1), 10-16.
Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Lafferty, M., & Nahari, G. (2017). Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component. Acta Psychologica, 174, 1-8.
Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 47-59.
Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Sarikas, G., Leal, S., Jupe, L., & Nahari, G. (2018). Extending the verifiability approach framework: The effect of initial questioning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(6), 787-804.
Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communications Monographs, 47(2), 119-131.
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67-85.
Jupe, L. M., Leal, S., Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2017). Applying the Verifiability Approach in an international airport setting. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(8), 812-825.
Jupe, L. M., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Leal, S., & Mann, S. A. (2016). The lies we live: Using the verifiability approach to detect lying about occupation. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 13(1), 1-13.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?. American Psychologist, 60(3), 215-228.
Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211-227.
Lancaster, G. L., Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Waller, B. (2013). Sorting the liars from the truth tellers: The benefits of asking unanticipated questions on lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 107-114.
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. P. (2015). You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(1), 129-146.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(2), 89-94.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? Scan as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 68-76.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014a). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227-239.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 122- 128.
Roos af Hjelmsater, E., Öhman, L., Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2014). ‘Mapping’deception in adolescents: Eliciting cues to deceit through an unanticipated spatial drawing task. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(1), 179-188.
Stromwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(2), 207-219.
Stromwall, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(1), 19-36.
Vrij, A. (2008). Wiley series in the psychology of crime, policing and law. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110-117.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta- analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1-21.
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 28-32.
Vrij, A., Kneller, W., & Mann, S. (2000). The effect of informing liars about Criteria-Based Content Analysis on their ability to deceive CBCA-raters. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5(1), 57-70.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 159-166.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Dalton, G., Jo, E., Shaboltas, A., ... & Houston, K. (2017). Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews. Acta Psychologica, 177, 44-53.
Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Isitt, R., & Leal, S. (2016). Using the verifiability lie detection approach in an insurance claim setting. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(3), 183-197.
Warmelink, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S., Jundi, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 178-183.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1-59.