LAUSR

We examined to what extent, and how, the judgment framework within which assessments of reality monitoring (RM) criteria are made affects the efficacy of these assessments in predicting veracity. In Experiment 1, trained participants assessed the presence of RM criteria in truthful and false life stories. Participants either: (a) knew the real purpose of RM and assessed the criteria in order to determine the veracity of the stories (forensic-judgmental context), (b) were misled to believe that RM is a tool for the prediction of literary attractiveness and assessed the criteria to determine the perceived attractiveness of the stories (literature-judgmental context); or (c) were told nothing about the purpose of RM (notjudgmental context). Results showed that criteria assessments were positively affected in predicting the veracity of stories in the forensic-judgmental context group. In Experiment 2, trained participants assessed the criteria for the same truthful and false life stories. Two-thirds of the participants knew the real purpose of RM as a lie-detection tool. However, they were misled to believe either that all stories were truthful (biased-for-truth) or that all stories were false (biased-for-lie). The remaining participants were told nothing about the purpose of RM (control group). Results showed that biased-for-truth participants perceived the stories as richer in perceptual, contextual, and emotional details, as compared with the control group. Taken together, the results show that judgment frame has an effect on assessment of RM criteria. Interpersonal RM as a cognitive process will be discussed.