All mouth and trousers? Use of the Devil’s Advocate questioning protocol to determine authenticity of opinions about protester actions

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 eliciting-opinion question and counter-arguments to their a devil’s advocate question. Truth tellers (n = 55) reported true protestor actions, whereas opposite of opinion. Answers were coded number arguments plausibility, immediacy, clarity scriptedness. Data analysed with analyses variance veracity being sole factor. Supporting hypothesis, truth provided more pro-arguments than all questions answers sounded plausible, immediate clear tellers’ answers. The pattern was predicted but not found, likely caused by simplification Neither scripted diagnostic indicator.