Markers of good planning behavior as a cue for separating true and false intent

Giolla, Erik Mac; Granhag, Pär Anders; Liu-Jonsson, Meiling

doi:10.1002/pchj.36

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In several ways, the results from this study are not in line with previous studies on the detection of false intentions (Mac Giolla et al, 2013;Vrij et al, 2011). We will first discuss limitations related to the experimental design and data collection and then elaborate on those related to the theory, data analysis and operationalization of constructs.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 42%

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: 42%

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

“…planning of a trip) rather than outcomes (e.g. purpose of a trip) (Mac Giolla, Granhag, & Liu-Jönsson, 2013), and asking of the same question twice in different formats (Leins, Fisher, & Vrij, 2012;Leins, Fisher, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2011).…”

Section: The Cognitive Lie Detection Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Train the Trainers: A First Step towards a Science‐Based Cognitive Lie Detection Training Workshop Delivered by a Practitioner

Vrij

Mann

Leal

et al. 2015

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A training workshop utilising recent research in cognitive lie detection was designed and evaluated. A unique future of the training was that a practitioner (retired police detective) instead of scientists (e.g. the training developers) introduced the techniques. To evaluate the training, 27 experienced police detectives each interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) before training, and another group of 23 experienced police detectives interviewed one mock suspect (a truth teller or liar) after training. The police detectives were free to interview the mock suspect in any way they felt appropriate, but those who had received training were asked to try to incorporate (some of) the taught techniques in their interviews. The detectives made veracity judgements, and the interviews were transcribed and coded for the amount of detail elicited and the questions asked. Training had a modest effect on the ability to distinguish between truths and lies but resulted in a higher percentage of appropriate questions asked. Trainees did not implement the taught techniques to an equal extent, but when they did, the techniques enhanced the elicitation of information. The training study also revealed challenges, particularly difficulty in implementing the taught techniques into practice and asking the right questions to elicit differences in detail between truth tellers and liars. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Hallaron resultados en la línea descrita, ya que los sinceros mencionaron en más ocasiones los marcadores asignados a la buena planificación: la intención de dividirse al llegar al centro comercial y el haber anticipado algún posible contratiempo. No obstante, los autores advirtieron que estas conductas específicas iban muy ligadas al contexto de esta investigación, por lo que sus resultados no era posible generalizarlos a otras situaciones (Mac Giolla et al, 2013).…”

Section: Calidad De Los Planesunclassified

“…A continuación entraremos en los estudios que plantean preguntas inesperadas relacionadas con los viajes y centradas en un aspecto no anticipado (la fase de planificación de un viaje, la calidad de los planes y el pensamiento episódi-co futuro) Mac Giolla, Granhag, & Liu-Jönsson, 2013;Sooniste, Granhag, Knieps, & Vrij, 2013;Warmelink, Vrij, Mann, Jundi, & Granhag, 2012). Finalizaremos por aquellos estudios que manejan la evidencia de manera estratégica (Clemens, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2011).…”

unclassified

La Intención Es Lo Que Cuenta. Una Revisión Sobre La Detección Del Engaño en Intenciones

Fernández¹,

Halty²

2018

Pap. Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markers of good planning behavior as a cue for separating true and false intent

Cited by 23 publications

References 20 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

Train the Trainers: A First Step towards a Science‐Based Cognitive Lie Detection Training Workshop Delivered by a Practitioner

La Intención Es Lo Que Cuenta. Una Revisión Sobre La Detección Del Engaño en Intenciones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About