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

Sooniste, Tuule; Granhag, Pär Anders; Strömwall, Leif A.; Vrij, Aldert

doi:10.1111/sjop.12216

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our core hypothesis was that truthful statements contained more detailed information than false statements and that this might be moderated by the instructions given to participants. The data did not support the hypothesis that truthful statements contain more detailed information than false statements which is in contrast to some previous intentions studies (Sooniste et al, 2015;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, & Granhag, 2013, but see Sooniste et al, 2013). Those studies found that truthful statements tended to be richer in detail than false statements.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…The authors found that truth tellers' answers were rated as more plausible than liars' answers but did not differ on the perceived amount of detail (for studies that do show such a difference in the richness of detail on intentions, see Sooniste et al, 2015;Warmelink et al, 2012;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Leal, et al, 2013). These findings were recently complemented with the Verifiability Approach (Jupe, Leal, Vrij, & Nahari, 2017).…”

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…For example, in border control settings, it might be more important to determine what someone is planning to do upon entering a country rather than learning what they have been doing before coming to border control. Recently, researchers have begun shifting the temporal dimension of verbal deception research paradigms towards that of intentions (Mac Giolla, Granhag, & Liu-Jönsson, 2013; Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps, & Vrij, 2013;Sooniste, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2015).…”

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For many practical purposes in law enforcement and intelligence services, it is becoming increasingly important to detect people with potentially malicious intent to prevent crimes from happening Knieps, & Vrij, 2013;Sooniste, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2015).…”

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Kleinberg

Nahari²,

Arntz

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Academic research on deception detection has largely focused on the detection of past events. For many applied purposes, however, the detection of false reports about someone's intention merits attention. Based on the verbal deception detection paradigm, we explored whether true statements on intentions were more detailed and more specific than false statements on intentions, particularly when instructed to be as specific as possible. Method: Participants (n = 222) lied or told the truth about their upcoming travel plans either providing 'as much information as possible' (standard instructions) or being 'as specific as possible' (i.e., mentioning times, locations, places; specific instructions), resulting in four conditions (truthful vs. deceptive intention by standard vs. specific instructions). We collected data via a custom-made web app and performed automated verbal content analysis of participants' written answers. Findings: We did not find a significant difference in the specificity of participants' statements. The instruction to be as specific as possible promoted more specific information but did not help to discern honest from deceptive flying intentions. Conclusion:The experiment reported here attempted to demonstrate automated verbal deception detection of intentions. The difficulty in capturing genuine intentions, and the non-intrusive, noninteractive questioning approach might explain the null findings and raise questions for further research. We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation. With an increased demand for security systems like airport border control, researchers and practitioners alike have identified the need for applications to detect deception on a large scale (Honts & Hartwig, 2014;Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). For example, the context of airport border control excludes many tools used in deception research due to their limited applicability. With developments towards more seamless passenger flows and minimal passenger-security personnel interaction, an ideal deception detection system would be implementable at stages even before passengers arrive at the airport (e.g., a filter system during online check-in processes, Kleinberg, Arntz, & Verschuere, in press). A promising paradigm that might be applicable in settings that require the testing of a vast number of people is verbal deception detection. However, because the majority of verbal deception detection studies were conducted on the verbal content of face-to-face interviews, a key challenge is the transition towards large-scale applicable methods. This paper reports an attempt to apply verbal deception detection tools on a large-scale in an airport security context. Verbal deception detectionThe idea to use the verbal content as an indicator of deception is rooted in the Undeutsch Hypothesis (1967, 1982) stating that truthful statements differ from false declarations in quality and content because the process through which the particular statement is produced is d...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Detecting Deceptive Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

Kleinberg

Nahari²,

Arntz

et al. 2017

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In doing so, their lie contains many truthful aspects retrieved from previous experience. Although this is certainly ecologically valid, it is in stark contrast to experimental deception research where the lie is often a complete lie without resorting to previous experience (e.g., Sooniste, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2015). The low proportion of passengers who did not make the trip before and the lack of that information from the original study do not allow us to further explore this explanation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions

Kleinberg

Warmelink

Arntz

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal deception detection has gained momentum as a technique to tell truth‐tellers from liars. At the same time, researchers' degrees of freedom make it hard to assess the robustness of effects. Replication research can help evaluate how reproducible an effect is. We present the first replication in verbal deception research whereby ferry passengers were instructed to tell the truth or lie about their travel plans. The original study found truth‐tellers to include more specific time references in their answers. The replication study that closely mimicked the setting, procedure, materials, coding, and analyses found no lie–truth difference for specific time references. Although the power of our replication study was suboptimal (0.77), Bayesian statistics showed evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. Given the great applied consequences of verbal credibility tests, we hope this first replication attempt ignites much needed preregistered, high‐powered, multilab replication efforts.

show abstract

Eliciting Information and Detecting Lies in Intelligence Interviewing: An Overview Of Recent Research

Vrij

Granhag

2014

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional police-suspect interviews differ from intelligence interviews in several important ways, and these differences merit new research activities. This article presents an overview of recent and innovative research into eliciting information and cues to deceit in intelligence interviews, and discusses research into new domains including 'lying about intentions', 'undercover interviewing', and 'collective interviewing'. Although that research is still in its infancy, the findings reveal that truth tellers' and liars' answers can be distinguished from each other if the correct interview protocols are implemented, such as asking unexpected questions and introducing forced turn-taking. In addition, this new research also shows that the so-called Scharff technique is more effective for eliciting human intelligence information compared with more traditional techniques.

show abstract

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

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions

Eliciting Information and Detecting Lies in Intelligence Interviewing: An Overview Of Recent Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About