Detecting false intentions using unanticipated questions

Autoři: Glynis Bogaard aff001;  Joyce van der Mark aff001;  Ewout H. Meijer aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Section Forensic Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article


The present study investigated whether measurable verbal differences occur when people vocalize their true and false intentions. To test potential differences, we used an experimental set-up where liars planned a criminal act (i.e., installing a virus on a network computer) and truth-tellers a non-criminal act (i.e., installing a new presentation program “SlideDog” on a network computer). Before they could carry out these acts, a confederate intercepted the participant and interviewed them about their intentions and the planning phase by using both anticipated and unanticipated questions. Liars used a cover story to mask their criminal intentions while truth-tellers told the entire truth. In contrast to our hypotheses, both human and automated coding did not show any evidence that liars and truth-tellers differed in plausibility or detailedness. Furthermore, results showed that asking unanticipated questions resulted in lengthier answers than anticipated questions. These results are in line with the mixed findings in the intention literature and suggest that plausibility and detailedness are less diagnostic cues for deception about intentions.

Klíčová slova:

Computer networks – Computers – Crime – Deception – Insurance – Memory recall – Questionnaires – Computer security


1. Bogaard G, Meijer EH, Vrij A. Using an Example Statement Increases Information but Does Not Increase Accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2014;11(2):151–63.

2. Memon A, Fraser J, Colwell K, Odinot G, Mastroberardino S. Distinguishing truthful from invented accounts using reality monitoring criteria. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2010;15(2):177–94.

3. Sporer SL, Sharman SJ. Should I believe this? Reality monitoring of accounts of self-experienced and invented recent and distant autobiographical events. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2006;20:837–54.

4. Amado BG, Arce R, Farina F, Vilarino M. Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2016;16(2):201–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002 30487863

5. Culhane SE, Kehn A, Horgan AJ, Meissner CA, Hosch HM, Wodahl EJ. Generation and detection of true and false alibi statements. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 2013;20:619–38.

6. Nahari G, Vrij A. Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2014;3:89–94.

7. Harvey AC, Vrij A, Leal S, Lafferty M, Nahari G. Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component. Acta psychologica. 2017;174:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.01.001 28088655

8. Harvey AC, Vrij A, Nahari G, Ludwig K. Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2017;22(1):47–59.

9. Silke A. Research on terrorism. Terrorism informatics: Springer; 2008. p. 27–50.

10. Granhag PA. On the psycho-legal study of true and false intentions: Dangerous waters and some stepping stones. The Open Criminology Journal. 2010;3:37–43.

11. Meijer EH, Verschuere B, Merckelbach H. Detecting criminal intent with the concealed information test. The Open Criminology Journal. 2010;3:44–7.

12. Malle BF, Moses LJ, Baldwin DA. Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition: MIT press; 2001.

13. Granhag PA, Mac Giolla E. Preventing future crimes. European Psychologist. 2014;19:195–206.

14. Schacter DL, Addis DR, Buckner RL. Episodic simulation of future events. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008;1124(1):39–60.

15. Schacter DL, Addis DR. On the constructive episodic simulation of past and future events. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2007;30(3):331–2.

16. Szpunar KK. Episodic future thought: An emerging concept. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010;5(2):142–62. doi: 10.1177/1745691610362350 26162121

17. Szpunar KK, Watson JM, McDermott KB. Neural substrates of envisioning the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(2):642–7.

18. Watanabe H. Semantic and episodic predictions of memory for plans. Japanese Psychological Research. 2005;47(1):40–5.

19. Clemens F, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA. Counter‐interrogation strategies when anticipating questions on intentions. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2013;10(1):125–38.

20. Granhag PA, Knieps M. Episodic future thought: Illuminating the trademarks of forming true and false intentions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2011;25(2):274–80.

21. Vrij A, Granhag PA, Mann S, Leal S. Lying about flying: The first experiment to detect false intent. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2011;17(7):611–20.

22. Vrij A, Leal S, Mann SA, Granhag PA. A comparison between lying about intentions and past activities: Verbal cues and detection accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2011;25(2):212–8.

23. Warmelink L, Vrij A, Mann S, Granhag PA. Spatial and temporal details in intentions: A cue to detecting deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2013;27(1):101–6.

24. Kleinberg B, Warmelink L, Arntz A, Verschuere B. The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2018;32(5):592–9. doi: 10.1002/acp.3439 30333683

25. Kleinberg B, Van Der Toolen Y, Vrij A, Arntz A, Verschuere B. Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: The model statement technique and predictive modeling. Applied cognitive psychology. 2018;32(3):354–66. doi: 10.1002/acp.3407 29861544

26. Kleinberg B, Nahari G, Arntz A, Verschuere B. An investigation on the detectability of deceptive intent about flying through verbal deception detection. Collabra: Psychology. 2017;3(1).

27. Sooniste T, Granhag PA, Knieps M, Vrij A. True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future. Psychology, Crime and Law. 2013;19:673–865.

28. Knieps M, Granhag PA, Vrij A. Back to the future: Asking about mental images to discriminate between true and false intentions. The Journal of psychology. 2013;147(6):619–40. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2012.728542 24199515

29. Vrij A, Granhag PA, Mann S, Leal S. Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011;20:28–32.

30. Vrij A, Leal S, Granhag PA, Mann S, Fisher R, Hillman J, et al. Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior. 2009;33:159–66. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y 18523881

31. Lancaster GL, Vrij A, Hope L, Waller B. Sorting the liars from the truth tellers: The benefits of asking unanticipated questions on lie detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2013;27(1):107–14.

32. Mann S, Vrij A. Police officers’ judgements of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioural control in real-life police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2006;12(3):307–19.

33. Warmelink L, Vrij A, Mann S, Jundi S, Granhag PA. The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions. Acta Psychologica. 2012;141:178–83. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.011 22964059

34. Sooniste T, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A. Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2016;21(2):344–57.

35. Ormerod TC, Dando CJ. Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2015;144(1):76.

36. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 2nd edn. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale; 1988.

37. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420 18839484

38. Pennebaker JW, Francis ME, Booth RJ. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.

39. Zijlstra HM, Middendorp H, Meerveld T, Geenen R. Validiteit van de Nederlandse versie van de [Validity of the Dutch version of] Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie [Dutch Journal of Psychology). 2005;60:55–63.

40. Boot P, Zijlstra H, Geenen R. The Dutch translation of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) 2007 dictionary. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2017;6(1):65–76.

41. Vrij A, Granhag PA. Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2012;1:110–7.

42. Parkhouse T, Ormerod TC. Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews. PloS one. 2018;13(12):e0208751. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208751 30532180

43. Elntib S, Wagstaff G. Are reality monitoring differences between truthful and deceptive autobiographical accounts affected by standardisation for word-count and the presence of others? Psychology, Crime & Law. 2017;23(7):699–716.

44. Elntib S, Wagstaff GF, Wheatcroft JM. The Role of Account Length in Detecting Deception in Written and Orally Produced Autobiographical Accounts using Reality Monitoring. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2015;12(2):185–98.

45. Luke TJ. Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2018:1–44.

46. Arnold KM, McDermott KB, Szpunar KK. Imagining the near and far future: The role of location familiarity. Memory & Cognition. 2011;39(6):954–67.

47. Robin J, Moscovitch M. The effects of spatial contextual familiarity on remembered scenes, episodic memories, and imagined future events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2014;40(2):459. doi: 10.1037/a0034886 24219084

48. Leins DA, Fisher RP, Ross SJ. Exploring liars' strategies for creating deceptive reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2013;18(1):141–51.

49. Nahari G, Vrij A, Fisher RP. The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2014;28(1):122–8.

50. Nahari G, Vrij A. Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case. Crime Psychology Review. 2015;1:98–107.

51. Clemens F, Grolig T. Innocent of the crime under investigation: suspects? counter-interrogation strategies and statement-evidence inconsistency in strategic vs. non-strategic interviews. Psychology Crime & Law. 2019;25(10):945–62.

52. Colwell K, Memon A, James-Kangal N, Cole L, Martin M, Wirsing E, et al. Innocent suspects lying by omission. Journal of Forensic Psychology. 2018;3(1):1–6.

53. Elaad E. Plausible lies and implausible truths: Police investigators' preferences while portraying the role of innocent suspects. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2019;24(2):229–40.

54. Verigin BL, Meijer EH, Vrij A, Zauzig L. The interaction of truthful and deceptive information. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2019:1–17.

55. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H. Cues to deception. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(1):74–118. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 12555795

56. Hauch V, Sporer SL, Masip J, Blandón-Gitlin I. Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content analysis. American Psychological Association; 2017. p. 819–34.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12
Nejčtenější tento týden