| 1. |
- Ask, Karl, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Intending or pretending? Automatic evaluations of goal cues discriminate true and false intentions
- 2013
-
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0888-4080 .- 1099-0720. ; 27:2, s. 173-177
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This research presents a novel approach to discriminating between true and deceptive statements about intended future behavior. Arguing that true intentions are goal-directed, we predict that people who genuinely intend to pursue a reported goal will implicitly evaluate goal-relevant cues positively, whereas people who do not intend to pursue the goal will not. Participants in an experiment were instructed to tell the truth about a planned future behavior (true intention) or to falsely report that same behavior to mask their actual mock-criminal intention (false intention). As predicted, an evaluative priming task showed that participants with true intention exhibited implicit positive evaluations of cues relevant to the reported goal, whereas participants with false intention did not. Subsequent analyses showed that implicit positivity significantly discriminated between true and false intentions. The findings are discussed in terms of theoretical contributions and implications for the development of future detection tools.
|
|
| 2. |
- Calderon, Sofia, 1988, et al.
(author)
-
Linguistic concreteness of statements of true and false intentions
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. - : American Psychological Association (APA). - 2211-3681 .- 2211-369X. ; 12:4, s. 531-541
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Our aim was to examine how people communicate their true and false intentions. Based on construal-level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), we predicted that statements of true intentions would be more concretely phrased than statements of false intentions. True intentions refer to more likely future events than false intentions, and they should therefore be mentally represented at a lower level of mental construal. This should be mirrored in more concrete language use. Transcripts of truthful and deceptive statements about intentions from six previous experimental studies (total N = 528) were analyzed using two automated verbal content analysis approaches: a folk-conceptual measure of concreteness (Brysbaert et al., 2014) and linguistic category model scoring (Seih et al., 2017). Contrary to our hypotheses, veracity did not predict statements’ concreteness scores, suggesting that automated verbal analysis of linguistic concreteness is not a viable deception detection technique for intentions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Clemens, Franziska, 1981, et al.
(author)
-
Skulking around the dinosaur: Eliciting cues to children’s deception via strategic disclosure of evidence.
- 2010
-
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. ; 24, s. 925-940
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research has shown that cues to deception are more salient as an effect of strategic use of evidence (SUE) during interviews. This study examined the feasibility of the SUE-technique for eliciting cues to children's deception. Experiment 1 investigated verbal cues to deception as a function of early vs. late disclosure of evidence. Eighty-four children (12–14 years) either guilty or innocent of a mock crime were interviewed. As predicted, deceptive statements were significantly more inconsistent with the evidence than truthful statements, and this was more pronounced as a function of late compared to early disclosure of evidence. In Experiment 2, adult observers (N=168) made veracity assessments of the videotaped statements. Observers in the late disclosure condition achieved an accuracy rate higher than chance (63.1%), whereas accuracy rates in the early disclosure condition were at chance level (56%). Accuracy rates were significantly higher for truthful (70.2%), than deceptive statements (48.8%).
|
|
| 4. |
- Clemens, Franziska, 1981, et al.
(author)
-
Skulking around the dinosaur statue: Detecting children's deception via strategic disclosure of evidence
- 2008
-
In: Paper presented at the 5th meeting of the Nordic Network for Research in Psychology and Law (NNPL), 10-11 October 2008 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Since previous studies have shown the potential of late disclosure of evidence as a deception detection tool, this study examined whether or not these results can be replicated with children as liars and truth-tellers. It was hypothesized that the deception detection accuracy in the late disclosure condition would be significantly higher than in the early disclosure condition. In an experiment, 168 adult observers judged the veracity of 84 children (12–14 years), interviewed separately about a mock crime they had (liars) or had not (truth-tellers) committed. In half of the interviews the evidence was disclosed early, in the other half late. The accuracy rate was 56% for the early disclosure condition, and 63.1% for the late disclosure condition (a non-significant difference). Furthermore, the observers were better at detecting truthful statements (70.2%), than lies (48.8%). We will discuss the results in relation to past research and in terms of statement-evidence inconsistency.
|
|
| 5. |
- Deeb, Haneen, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
Changing question format in repeated interviews to detect lies
- 2016
-
In: Decepticon Conference.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Lie detection research has typically focused on reports about a single event. However, in many forensic and security contexts, suspects are likely to report on several events, some of them may be untruthful. This presents interviewers with the challenge of detecting which reports are true and which are not. Varying question format in a second interview, we examined differences in liars’ and truth-tellers’ statement inconsistency about two events. One hundred and fifty participants viewed a meeting in which a non-critical and a critical event were discussed. Truth-tellers were instructed to be honest in their reports about both events, whereas liars had to lie about the critical event. In the first interview, all participants provided a free recall account. In a second interview, participants either gave another free recall account or responded to specific questions presented sequentially (concerning one event at a time) or non-sequentially (concerning both events simultaneously). Liars’ accounts featured more repetitions than truth-tellers for both events, particularly in response to questions presented in non-sequential order. The implications for the use of this question format are discussed.
|
|
| 6. |
- Deeb, Haneen, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
Suspects' consistency in statements concerning two events when different question formats are used
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. - : Wiley. - 1544-4759. ; 14:1, s. 74-87
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Lie detection research has typically focused on reports about a single event. However, in many forensic and security contexts, suspects are likely to report on several events, some of them may be untruthful. This presents interviewers with the challenge of detecting which reports are true and which are not. Varying question format in a second interview, we examined differences in liars' and truth‐tellers' statement consistency about two events. One hundred and fifty participants viewed a meeting in which a noncritical and a critical event were discussed. Truth‐tellers were instructed to be honest in their reports about both events, whereas liars had to lie about the critical event. In the first interview, all participants provided a free recall account. In a second interview, participants either gave another free recall account or responded to specific questions presented sequentially (concerning one event at a time) or nonsequentially (concerning both events simultaneously). Liars' accounts featured fewer repetitions than truth‐tellers for both events, particularly in response to questions presented in nonsequential order. The implications for the use of this question format are discussed.
|
|
| 7. |
- Deeb, Haneen, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
The Devil’s Advocate approach: An interview technique for assessing consistency among deceptive and truth-telling pairs of suspects
- 2018
-
In: Legal and Criminological Psychology. - : Wiley. - 1355-3259. ; 23:1, s. 37-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose The aim of this study was to assess statement consistency in pairs of deceptive and truth-telling suspects when the Devil's Advocate approach is implemented. This approach involves asking suspects an ‘opinion-eliciting’ question for arguments that support their opinions followed by a ‘devil's advocate’ question to elicit opposing arguments. On the basis of the confirmation bias and impression management literatures, we predicted that truth-telling pairs would provide more consistent arguments in response to the opinion-eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. Deceptive pairs were expected to be equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Method Forty-nine pairs of participants were matched, based on their strong opinions about a controversial topic, and were asked to either tell the truth or lie about their opinions to an interviewer. Pair members were permitted to prepare for the interview together. Each participant was interviewed individually with the devil's advocate approach. Results Prepared truth-telling pairs were more consistent with each other in response to the opinion-eliciting question than to the devil's advocate question. However, and as predicted, deceptive pairs were equally consistent with each other in response to both questions. Conclusions The Devil's Advocate approach seems to be a promising interview technique for assessing consistency among pairs who hold false opinions and pairs who hold true opinions. It also has implications for the consistency heuristic as consistency is not diagnostic of deception or honesty unless the interview technique is taken into consideration.
|
|
| 8. |
- Deeb, Haneen, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
Visuospatial Counter-Interrogation Strategies by Liars Familiar with the Alibi Setting
- 2018
-
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0888-4080 .- 1099-0720. ; 32:1, s. 105-116
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study examines counter-interrogation strategies employed by liars giving false alibis. Participants (N =144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth-tellers) or to use it as a false alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (informed liars). Participants spent either 10 minutes (high familiarity condition) or 30 seconds (low familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were asked to provide two visuospatial statements, which were assessed for salient details, non-salient details, between-statement consistency, and statement-alibi setting consistency. Informed liars provided significantly more salient and non-salient details than uninformed liars and truth-tellers, particularly in the high familiarity condition. No differences emerged for statement consistency types. The results suggest that liars are more concerned than truth tellers about making a positive impression on the interviewer, and they fail to accurately reflect on truth-tellers’ visuospatial statements
|
|
| 9. |
- Deeb, Haneen, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
Visuospatial countermeasures by liars familiar with the alibi setting
- 2016
-
In: International Investigative Interviewing Research Group (iIIRG) Conference, 20-24 June 2016, London.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The current study addresses visuospatial countermeasures employed by suspects in investigative interviews. Participants (N =144) visited a restaurant to buy a sandwich (truth tellers) or to use it as an alibi (liars). Half of the liars were informed they might be asked for a drawing of the alibi setting if interviewed (Informed Liars). Participants spent either 10 min (High Familiarity condition) or 30 s (Low Familiarity condition) in the restaurant. All participants were interviewed twice with different visuospatial tasks. Statements were assessed for the number of salient and non-salient details and for consistency between interviews and consistency with the alibi setting. Informed Liars provided significantly more salient and non-salient details than Uninformed Liars and Truth tellers. The difference for non-salient details was more pronounced in the High Familiarity than in the Low Familiarity condition. Uninformed Liars and Truth tellers did not differ in their accounts. Hence, Informed Liars failed to mimic truth tellers’ visuospatial statements as they provided overly detailed statements. Nonetheless, they could not provide overly consistent statements, so consistency merits more attention in the lie detection field.
|
|
| 10. |
- Geurts, Renate, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
Assessing threats of violence: professional skill or common sense?
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. - : Wiley. - 1544-4759. ; 14:3, s. 246-259
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- When faced with threats of violence, it is of great importance to assess the risk for actual harm to occur. Over the last decades, this task has developed into a domain of its own and professionals have specialised in threat assessment. However, it is yet unknown whether professional experience affects the quality of threat assessments. The present study examined how threat assessment professionals (N = 44), university students (N = 44), and laypersons (N = 45) assessed the risk for violence in three fictitious cases. The assessments (i.e., assigning risk values to different pieces of infor-mation) were found to be strikingly similar across the three groups. Yet, professionals agreed more with one another on their assess-ments, and professionals identified more relevant (empirically sup-ported) threat cues when given the opportunity to request additional information. These results suggest that threat assessment professionals know better than nonprofessionals what information to look for, and hence, they may contribute most in the process of gathering information to clarify the threat. Such knowledge can help to optimise the use of expertise, which may improve the quality of threat assessments. The current findings can be of value to those who consult threat assessment professionals, as well as to the pro-fessionals themselves.
|
|
