| 1. |
- Granhag, Pär-Anders, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
Discriminating between statements of true and false intent: The impact of repeated interviews and strategic questioning
- 2016
-
In: Journal of Applied Security Research. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1936-1610 .- 1936-1629. ; 11:1, s. 1-17
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Between-statement consistency is regarded as an important cue to deceit. However, research indicates that liars can be as consistent as truth tellers. The consistency of statements of intent in two mock security settings was examined. Truth tellers spoke honestly of their intentions. Liars provided a cover story tomask their criminal intentions. Participants (N=60)were interviewed three times, and their statements were coded for repetitions, omissions, and commissions. The similarities between truth tellers and liars on all threemeasures of consistency were striking. These findings highlight consistency as a pernicious cue to deceit.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985, et al.
(author)
-
Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects
- 2016
-
In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. - : Wiley. - 1355-3259. ; 21:2, s. 344-357
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose Despite high potential value for real-life situations, detecting true and false intentions by groups of suspects have not been previously investigated. Method The experimental study had a set-up in which participants (N = 232), half in dyads and half in quartets, planned for either a mock crime or a non-criminal event. In structured individual interviews, all participants were asked one set of questions targeting their intentions (anticipated questions) and one set of questions targeting the planning phase of the intentions (unanticipated questions). We scored the level of detail and consistency in participants' interview responses. Results As predicted, questions on the planning phase were perceived as unanticipated and difficult to answer by both liars and truth tellers. Truth tellers' answers to the question on intent were perceived as more detailed compared to the liars. Cells of truth tellers and liars achieved an equally high within-group consistency for their answers to the questions on the stated intentions, whereas cells of truth tellers achieved a higher within-group consistency for the answers to the questions on the planning phase. Finally, truth tellers' descriptions of their intentions contained more information related to how to attain the stated goal, whereas liars gave more information related to why it was necessary to attain the stated goal. Conclusions Asking anticipated and unanticipated questions can be a successful way of eliciting cues to true and false intentions among small cells of suspects.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985
(author)
-
Discriminating Between True and False Intentions: Questions to Pose and Cues to Use
- 2015
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)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 truth-telling suspects’ answers to questions about their intentions, and questions about the planning of their stated intentions. Half the study’s participants (the truth tellers) 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-tellers’ answers to the unanticipated question were significantly longer, more detailed, and clearer than the liars’ answers. Study II examines how cues to true and false intentions are moderated when members of small groups are interviewed. The study focuses on within-group 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 members’ answers were less consistent than the dyad members’ answers for both anticipated and unanticipated questions. The liars’ answers to questions about their stated intentions included more information than the truth tellers’ answers about 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 truth-tellers’ answers to the unanticipated questions were significantly more detailed than the liars’ answers. Their answers differed more in the CI condition than in the SI condition, which indicates that the CI increased these differences. In addition, the truth-tellers’ descriptions included more information than the liars’ descriptions on how 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985
(author)
-
Eliciting cues to true and false intentions by strategic questioning
- 2013
-
Licentiate thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- For many legal and intelligence settings it is necessary to assess whether a stated intention is true or false. The 9/11-Attack (NYC) demonstrates the potential value of increased accuracy in discriminating between true and false intentions. However, almost all previous research on deception detection has dealt with liars’ and truth-tellers’ statements about their past actions. It is suggested that interviewing strategically might be a way to successfully elicit cues that enable discrimination between true and false intentions. Study I examined the differences between lying and truth-telling suspects’ answers to questions about their intentions, and questions about the planning of their stated intentions. Half of the subjects planned for a non-criminal act (truth-tellers) and half planned for a mock-criminal act (liars). Truth-tellers were instructed to tell the truth about their intentions. Liars were asked to plan a cover story that masked their real intentions. All participants were interviewed before they could carry out their intentions. They received two sets of questions during the interview on; (1) their intentions (anticipated) and (2) the planning phase of their stated intention (unanticipated). The results showed that truth-tellers’ (vs. liars’) answers to the unanticipated question were significantly longer, more detailed and clearer. Study II examined how cues to true and false intentions are moderated when small cells of suspects are interrogated. The focus was on within-group consistency and content based analysis. The experimental set-up was similar to Study I, except that subjects were divided into dyads and quartets. The findings showed that cells of truth-tellers’ answers to the unanticipated questions were perceived as more consistent than answers given by cells of liars. Answers to the anticipated questions given by cells of liars and cells of truth-tellers were perceived to be equally consistent. Answers given by quartets were perceived to be less consistent than answers given by dyads for both anticipated and unanticipated questions. Liars’ (vs. truth tellers’) answers to the questions about their intentions included more information about why they needed to pursue the stated goal, whereas truth-tellers focused more on how the stated goal would be pursued. The overall results support the idea that strategic questioning is a promising way forward in eliciting cues to deception. It is argued that interview protocols aiming to discriminate between true and false intentions should target both the intentions as such, and the planning phase of the stated intention.
|
|
| 7. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985, et al.
(author)
-
Statements about true and false intentions: Using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences
- 2015
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0036-5564. ; 56:4, s. 371-378
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study investigates the combined effect of the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the unanticipated questions approach on the magnitude of the elicited cues to true and false intentions. The participants (N=125) planned for either a mock crime or a non-criminal event, half of them were interviewed with a standard interview (SI) and half with the CI. All participants were asked one set of questions targeting their intentions (anticipated questions) and one set of questions targeting the phase in which they planned their stated intentions (unanticipated questions). As predicted, the questions about the planning phase were perceived as unanticipated by both liars and truth-tellers. Furthermore, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') answers to the unanticipated questions were significantly more detailed. Importantly, and in line with our predictions, for the answers given to questions about the planning-phase, liars and truth-tellers differed more clearly in the CI-condition than in the SI-condition, indicating that the CI indeed magnified the differences between liars and truth-tellers. In addition, and as predicted, the truth-tellers' (vs. the liars') descriptions of their intentions were more characterized by information related to how to attain the stated goal.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985, et al.
(author)
-
Training police investigators to interview to detect false intentions
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0882-0783 .- 1936-6469. ; 32:2, s. 152-162
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study is the first to investigate police investigators’ adherence to, and the effectiveness of, a training program for detecting true and false intentions. Experienced police investigators (N = 53) were either trained or not trained in how to interview to discriminate between true and false intentions. All investigators interviewed mock suspects (N = 53), of which half lied and half told truth about their intentions. Both subjective and objective measures showed that the trained investigators interviewed in line with the training received. That is, a large proportion asked about the planning of the stated intentions. Noteworthy, none of untrained investigators reported to have posed such questions for strategic purposes. The trained investigators reached a higher detection accuracy level (65 %) than their untrained colleagues (55 %), however not significantly. Given that the investigators adhered to the training, this training package is a viable starting point for developing more effective training programs.
|
|
| 9. |
- Sooniste, Tuule, 1985, et al.
(author)
-
True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future
- 2013
-
In: Psychology Crime & Law. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1068-316X .- 1477-2744. ; 19:8, s. 673-685
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study is on how to discriminate between true and false intentions, an emerging area within psycholegal research. We argue that asking about the past (the planning phase) might be a promising way to detect lies about the future (intentions). That is, participants who had developed false intentions to mask their criminal intentions were assumed to provide equally long and detailed answers to questions about intentions, compared to participants who told the truth about their intentions. In contrast, we predicted that lying participants would be worse at answering questions about the planning of their stated (false) intentions, compared to participants telling the truth about the planning of their stated (true) intentions. To test our assumptions, we used a newly devised experimental set-up accommodating the main characteristics of intent. Both lying and truth-telling suspects perceived the questions on planning as more unanticipated, and more difficult to answer, compared to the questions about their intentions (future actions). Furthermore, in support of our predictions we found that the truth-telling (vs. lying) suspects' answers to questions on planning were longer and perceived as more detailed and clear, whereas liars' and truth-tellers' answers to questions on intentions were equally long and perceived as equally detailed.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
