BACKGROUND Research shows that people believe deception can be detected from behavioral cues despite their past experience of detecting lies from non-behavioral, contextual information (evidence, third-person reports, etc.). However, in previous research, the question about beliefs was necessarily general, while the question about revealing information was always about a specific lie. In this study, we addressed this problem. METHOD Participants first indicated how they believed lies can be detected (beliefs; Questionnaire 1 or Q1). Next, they described either how they, in their past, detected a specific lie, several lies , or how they, in general , detect lies in their everyday lives (revealing information; Q2). RESULTS Regardless of the focus of Q2, and in line with prior research, behavioral cues were reported less often, and contextual indicators more often, in responding to Q2 than in responding to Q1. However, contrary to prior findings, behavioral cues still predominated in the responses to Q2. CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence that the specific-vs.-general focus of the questions changed the pattern of results, which apparently depended solely on whether participants reported beliefs or revealing information. We provide explanations for the prevalence of behavioral cues in Q2 responses, and make suggestions for future research.

中文翻译：

---

人们会像他们认为的那样发现欺骗吗？复制和扩展。

背景 研究表明，尽管人们过去曾从非行为、上下文信息（证据、第三人称报告等）中发现谎言，但人们相信可以从行为线索中检测到欺骗行为。然而，在以往的研究中，关于信念的问题必然是笼统的，而关于披露信息的问题总是关于一个特定的谎言。在这项研究中，我们解决了这个问题。方法 参与者首先表明他们相信谎言是如何被发现的（信念；问卷 1 或 Q1）。接下来，他们描述了他们过去如何发现一个特定的谎言，几个谎言，或者他们通常如何在日常生活中发现谎言（揭示信息；Q2）。结果无论第二季度的重点如何，并且与先前的研究一致，行为线索的报告频率较低，和上下文指标更频繁地响应 Q2 而不是响应 Q1。然而，与之前的发现相反，行为线索在对 Q2 的反应中仍然占主导地位。结论 我们没有发现任何证据表明问题的特定焦点与一般焦点会改变结果模式，这显然仅取决于参与者是报告信念还是透露信息。我们解释了 Q2 响应中行为线索的普遍性，并为未来的研究提出建议。这显然完全取决于参与者是报告信仰还是透露信息。我们解释了 Q2 响应中行为线索的普遍性，并为未来的研究提出建议。这显然完全取决于参与者是报告信仰还是透露信息。我们解释了 Q2 响应中行为线索的普遍性，并为未来的研究提出建议。