True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future

Sooniste, Tuule; Granhag, Pär Anders; Knieps, Melanie; Vrij, Aldert

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2013.793333

Cited by 49 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Liars may have an easier task and, hence, provide more detailed answers, if they are asked questions that they are prepared for. In support of the unexpected-questions approach, it has been found that more pronounced differences between truth tellers and liars appeared in answers to unexpected questions than in answers to expected questions (Roos af Hjelmsäter, Öhman, Granhag, Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps, & Vrij, 2013;Vrij et al, 2009;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Jundi, & Granhag, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Vrij

Leal

Mann

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe examined whether speech-related differences between truth tellers and liars are more profound when answering unexpected questions than when answering expected questions. We also examined whether the presence of an interpreter affected these results. In the experiment, 204 participants from the United States (Hispanic participants only), Russia, and the Republic of Korea were interviewed in their native language by a native-speaking interviewer or by a British interviewer through an interpreter. Truth tellers discussed a trip that they had made during the last 12 months; liars fabricated a story about such a trip. The key dependent variables were the amount of information provided and the proportion of all statements that were complications.The proportion of complications distinguished truth tellers from liars better when answering unexpected than expected questions, but only in interpreter-absent interviews. The number of details provided did not differ between truth tellers and liars or between interpreter-absent and interpreter-present interviews.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Vrij

Leal

Mann

et al. 2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To work towards potentially largescale applicable methods of deception detection, we built an online platform where we asked questions about people's upcoming flight plans. We stayed close to the questions asked in previously successful studies on verbal deception detection about intentions (Sooniste et al, 2013;Warmelink et al, 2012;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Leal, et al, 2013). In addition to being able to collect data on a large scale, another requirement for implementable tools is an automated analytical framework (Kleinberg et al, in press).…”

Section: The Current Investigationmentioning

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%

“…Coders were presented with the entire account of the participant (i.e., their answers to the ten questions), and asked to rate the entire statement. All variables were scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very low; 7 = very high, see Sooniste et al, 2013). Definitions were adopted from Vrij (2015) and MacGiolla et al (2013).…”

Section: Human Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining ten questions were identical to all participants whereby the destination and purpose were filled in according to the participants' experimental condition and their assigned destination/purpose pair. The questions were selected to reflect the structure and content of related studies (i.e., asking questions on the core event -Question 2 and 3; on the planning and preparation -Question 4 and 5; and on the transportation -Question 8 and 9, see Sooniste et al, 2013;Warmelink et al, 2012;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Leal, et al, 2013), and to take into account meta-analytical findings showing that emotion-related questions (Question 6 and 7) are a useful to elicit truthlie differences (Hauch, Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015). We supplemented these eight questions with two questions that we reasoned to be uniquely related to properly planned intended actions (Question 10) and should be rather unexpected (Question 11).…”

mentioning

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

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

Discriminating between True and False Intentions

Giolla¹,

Granhag²,

Vrij³

2014

Detecting Deception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future

Cited by 49 publications

References 14 publications

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

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

Discriminating between True and False Intentions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About