Discriminating between True and False Intentions

Abstract

In many legal and intelligence settings it is necessary to evaluate whether a stated intention is true or false. This thesis proposes that use of strategic interviewing may successfully elicit cues that allow interviewers to discriminate between true and false intentions. In this thesis the unanticipated questions approach a form of strategic interviewing is examined.Study I examines the differences between lying and truthanswers to questions about their intentions, and questions about the planning planned a non-criminal act; the other half (the liars) planned a mock-criminal act. All participants were intercepted and interviewed before they got the chance to perform the acts. The truth-tellers had been instructed to tell the truth about their intentions. The liars had been instructed to tell the cover story they had previously prepared. Both groups were asked two sets of questions in the interviews; (1) questions on their intentions (anticipated) and (2) questions on the planning of their stated intentions (unanticipated). The study revealed that the truth-Study II examines how cues to true and false intentions are moderated when members of small groups are interviewed. The study focuses on withingroup consistency and content-based analysis. The experimental set-up was similar to that of Study I with the exception that the participants were divided into dyads and quartets. The study showed that the truth-tellers in the groups answered the unanticipated questions more consistently than the liars in the groups. However the study revealed no difference in the consistency between the two groups in terms of their answers to anticipated questions. The quartet memb to questions about their stated intentions included more information than the why they needed to pursue the stated intention. However, the truth-tellers focused more than the liars on how to pursue the stated intention.Study III examines the combined effect of the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the unanticipated questions approach on the elicited cues to true and false intentions. The experimental set-up was similar to that of Study I with the exception that half the participants were interviewed using the standard interview (SI) technique and half were interviewed using the CI technique. The study reveals that the truthfi fered more in the CI condition than in the SI condition, which indicates that the CI increased these differences. In addition, the truthhow they planned to achieve their stated intentions.The overall findings support the assumption that strategic questioning is a promising way for eliciting cues to deceit and truthfulness.

Statements about true and false intentions: Using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences

“…Second, many of the participants were university students, which raise the question of to what extent our findings can be generalized to real‐life settings. In connection to this we believe it is important to acknowledge that our approach draws on liars' and truth‐tellers' counter‐interrogation strategies (Granhag & Hartwig, ; Mac Giolla, Granhag & Vrij, ). The counter‐interrogation strategy most relevant for the current study is that liars will prepare ready‐made answers to anticipated questions, and with this to make sure that the interviewer is convinced about why the stated goal is necessary to attain.…”

A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions

“…A few studies examining the differences between true and false intentions show similar results: truth tellers and liars provide a similar amount of detail when imagining the future, whereas truth tellers tend to include more detail than liars when recalling the past ( Vrij et al, 2011a , b ; Warmelink et al, 2012 ). Further, as discussed in Mac Giolla et al (2015) , holding a true intention may cause more thought-intrusions regarding the future when compared to a false intention. Evidence to support this is cited in Mac Giolla et al (2015) .…”

“…Further, as discussed in Mac Giolla et al (2015) , holding a true intention may cause more thought-intrusions regarding the future when compared to a false intention. Evidence to support this is cited in Mac Giolla et al (2015) . Truth-tellers had more task-related spontaneous thoughts than liars before completing their intention, further supporting that a genuine intention can demand a high degree of attention even when compared to lying.…”

A Goal‐Activation Framework of True and False Intentions

“…In recent years, deception researchers have turned their attention to this important topic. In a review of the research, Mac Giolla, Granhag, and Vrij () distinguish between two approaches to studying true and false intentions. The first approach is to extend more established deception detection techniques, such as the concealed information test, to intention situations (e.g.…”

“…The aim of the current paper is to present a novel framework to account for these intention‐specific approaches. Our framework builds on previous reviews and discussions on the topic (Granhag, ; Granhag & Mac Giolla, ; Mac Giolla et al, ). The approaches described in these past works, however, are disconnected and void of an underlying coherent base.…”