-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
1/6
Spatial and Temporal Details in Intentions: A Cue to Detecting
Deception
LARA WARMELINK1*, ALDERT VRIJ1, SAMANTHA MANN1 and PR ANDERS
GRANHAG2
1Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth,
UK2Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg,
Sweden
Summary: Research into lying about intentions is relatively new.
Studies have suggested that lying about intentions can bedetected
with statement analysing methods. This article describes two
experiments. The first experiment investigates how muchspatial and
temporal detail is given by people who are discussing a true or
false intention in a 26-question interview. The resultsshowed that
those with a true intention gave more spatial and temporal details.
The second experiment examines these details in aone-question
interview and whether the amount of temporal detail given can be
manipulated by the phrasing of the question. Theresults showed that
the amount of detail is much lower in these short interviews, but
can be increased with specific phrasing. Thetheoretical and
practical implications of these results are discussed. Copyright
2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lie detection methods have traditionally focussed on
partici-pants lying about past events or about their opinions.
They
are usually based on the Undeutsch hypothesis, whichclaims that
statements that describe an experienced eventwill have
characteristics that differ from statements thatdescribe events
that were not experienced (Steller, 1989).Researchers have recently
turned their attention to peoplelying about their intentions
(Granhag, 2010; Granhag &Knieps, 2010; Vrij, Granhag, Mann,
& Leal, 2011; Vrij,Lea, Mann, & Granhag, 2010). Being able
to detect these typesof lie is important because it deals with
preventing criminaland terrorist acts, which is a vital part of
security and intelli-gence work. One practical setting where
detecting lies aboutintentions can be of particular importance is
border control
and transport security. Here, travellers are often asked
whattheir plans are when they arrive at their destination. The
maingoal for these systems is to let people without criminal
intentpass through as quickly as possible while detaining those
withmore mendacious intentions (Burgoon et al., 2009).
Having an intention requires having an image of thefuture.
Schacter and colleagues concluded that imaginingthe future relies,
both cognitively and neurophysiologically,on the same processes
that are used to remember the past(Schacter & Addis, 2007;
Schacter, Addis, & Buckner,2008). That is, by using elements
from memories createdby previous experiences, an image of a
possible future isconstructed, much in the same way as images of
past events
are reconstructed by putting together different elements
fromautobiographical memory. DArgembeau and van derLinden (2004)
studied the clarity of participants memoriesof past events and
images of the future. They found thatmemories of past event were
rated by the participants asbeing clearer and more detailed than
images of future events.The clarity of both past events and future
events was higherif the event was positive and if it had occurred
recently orwas expected to occur soon after the moment of
describingit. As the clarity of images of both past and future
eventswas affected by these same variables, images of past and
future events appear to be related. This suggests thatalthough
images of past events are clearer than images of
future events, both can be discussed and rated in similarways.
This suggests that lie detection methods used to detectlies in
statements about past events may also work to detectlies in
statements about future events.
Intentions, defined here as future actions one is committedto
execute, are generally remembered better than images ofthe future
that are not going to be executed. The response timefor intention
related stimuli is lower than the response timefor stimuli related
to unintended future images (Goschke &Kuhl, 1993). In addition,
intentions are remembered moreoften than unintended future images
(Watanabe, 2005). Thissuggests that differences may emerge when
people describe
their true intentions compared with when they describe
theirunintended future activities.Several lie detection techniques
are based on the clarity and
the level of detail of the statement to be classified (Vrij,
2008).For example, Statement Validity Assessment and
RealityMonitoring contain criteria related to consistency and
detail(Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Vrij, 2005),
andtruth tellers typically give more detail than liars (DePauloet
al., 2003; Vrij, 2008). A possible explanation for this is
thatpeople remember more detailed information about experi-enced
events than about imagined events (Johnson, 1988;Johnson, Foley,
Suengas, & Raye, 1988). Many differenttypes of detail have been
studied as a cue to deception; and
in this article, we focus on spatial and temporal detail.
Spatialdetails give information about the spatial
relationshipsbetween objects and people and also on the movement
ofobjects and people. Temporal details give information aboutthe
duration of an event, when it took/will take place, andhow it is
embedded in context. Several studies have found thattruth tellers
use more spatial and temporal details than liarswhen discussing
past events (Masip et al., 2005; Vrij, 2008).Bond and Lee (2005)
found that temporal and spatial detailswere more common than some
other types of details, such asaffective or sensory details,
whereas Vrij et al. (2004) foundthat spatial and temporal details
are more common than cogni-
tive operations. Because the interviews in Experiment 2 arevery
short, it was decided to focus on these rather thancommon cues.
Spatial and temporal cues were also consideredsuitable, because in
both studies the participants discuss their
*Correspondence to: Lara Warmelink, Psychology Department,
Universityof Portsmouth, King Henry Building, King Henry 1 Street,
Portsmouth,PO1 2DY, UK.E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 27: 101106
(2013)Published online 8 October 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.2878
-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
2/6
travel plans. Travel is by definition movement in space, so
itwas considered a topic likely to elicit spatial and
temporaldetails.
When someone lies about their intention, they basicallyexchange
their true intention for an unintended future event.Because people
give more detail when discussing an inten-tion than when discussing
an unintended future image, wepredicted that people who tell the
truth about their intentionsgive more spatial and temporal
information than people whoare lying about their intentions
(Hypothesis I). This hypothesisis tested in Experiment 1. Granhag
and Knieps (2010), whoconducted an experiment in which participants
rated theirown true or false intentions, found indirect support for
thishypothesis. They found that participants rated their true
inten-tions as clearer on temporal and spatial details than their
falseintentions. However, unlike what we did in Experiment
1,Granhag and Knieps (2010) did not examine the number ofdetails
that the participants could give.
Experiment 1 was conducted in the lab. This is an unnatural
environment for the participants and unrelated to the topic
theyare discussing. To increase ecological validity, Experiment
2was conducted outside the lab, on the PortsmouthCaenferry. This
setting resembles settings where interviews aboutupcoming travel
are held in real life more closely than a lab.In such a setting,
the longer interviews used in Experiment 1would be less feasible,
considering the cost and time delayan interview would cause for a
traveller. Therefore, Experi-ment 2 tests whether any effect found
in Experiment 1 is stillpresent in Experiment 2. It is predicted
that effects foundin Experiment 1 will be weaker or absent in
Experiment 2(Hypothesis II). If truth tellers are more inclined
than liars to
give detail, specifi
c questioning may increase the difference.Just asking the
participants to give as much detail as possiblemay not be effective
as both truth tellers and liars will thenfocus on providing more
detail. However, questions that referto giving detail in a more
subtle manner may work, and thiswas examined in Experiment 2.
Because truth tellers are moreinclined to give detail than liars,
it is hypothesised that truthtellers will respond more strongly to
a subtle prompt than liars,increasing the difference between the
two groups in reportingdetails. This increase in detail will lead
to a better classificationof truth tellers and liars when a prompt
is included (HypothesisIII). The question used prompted the
participants specificallyfor time details, so we predict that this
prompt would increase
the difference between truth tellers and liars only in the
amountof temporal details they give (Hypothesis IV).
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants
Eighty-six participants were interviewed. Of these, 65
werefemale, 20 male and one person did not state gender ontheir
questionnaire. They were on average 27.59 years old(SD = 12.34
years). There were 42 truth tellers and 44 liars.
There were no significant differences in age or genderbetween
them (all F< 1.07, all p> 0.252). Fifty-sevenparticipants
were undergraduate students (in psychology,science and humanities),
the other 29 participants were
university employees (in administration, management,
supportservices, etc.).
Design
The independent variable is Veracity, it is a between
subjectvariable and consists of truth tellers and liars.
The dependent variables were the amount of spatial detail,the
amount of temporal detail and the amount of specifictimes that the
participant gave. Spatial details place objectsor people in space
or indicate their movement, for example:in it is in France, I went
to Paris. Temporal details giveinformation about time, for example:
in the afternoon,later or for two hours. Specific times (for
example) attwo oclock, were coded separately. Temporal detail
andspecific times were coded separately because they can some-times
differ in the type of information that is given. Specifictimes
always give precise information about when some-thing happened.
Sometimes temporal detail has the samefunction, but sometimes
temporal information is used by
the speaker to create a flow in their narrative, without
beingvery clear on when the discussed events actually occurred.All
three variables were measured as frequencies.
Procedure
The participants were recruited via an online participant
pooland advertisement. After a participant signed up to the
exper-iment, a questionnaire was sent to them via e-mail.
Thequestionnaire asked whether they had any travel plans inthe near
future and if so where, when and why they weregoing. It also asked
them to list all countries and major citiesthey had been to in the
past 5 years. This information was used
to allocate the participants to the conditions. Participants
withplans to make a trip were placed in the truth tellers
condition.Those who did not have a trip planned received
instructions tolie. Liars were given a fake destination and fake
reason fortheir trip. When they were given their fake destination,
theywere asked to confirm they had never been there. These
fakedestinations and reasons matched the destinations given bythe
truth tellers. This matching was carried out to prevent adifference
in travel destination and reason occurring betweenthe truth tellers
and liars. The procedure means that the partici-pants were not
randomly allocated to the conditions. Randomselection was
impossible because allocation depended on theparticipants intention
to travel, a factor that was beyond the
experimenters control. Of course, it is possible in theory
thatthere is a systemic difference between those who intendto
travel within the next few months and those who do not.However, we
cannot think of a theoretically plausible reasonwhy this would be
the case.
Those who were in the truthful condition were given thefollowing
instructions: In the interview I want you toanswer the questions
truthfully. Some people are asked tolie during the interview. The
interviewer knows that somepeople may lie, but doesnt know whether
you are tellingthe truth or lying. Your goal is to convince the
interviewerthat you really are telling the truth. The liars
instructions
were:In the interview I want you to lie and pretend thatyou are
travelling to [matched destination] and that you are
going there for the purpose of [matched reason]. The
inter-viewer knows that some people may lie, but does not know
102 L. Warmelink et al.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit.
Psychol. 27: 101106 (2013)
-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
3/6
whether you are lying or telling the truth. Your goal is
toconvince the interviewer that you are telling the truth.
Bothtruth tellers and liars had at least three days in
betweenreceiving these instructions and interview and were told
thatthey could prepare for the interview in any way they
consid-ered appropriate.
When the participants arrived for the interview, they weremet by
the experimenter who asked them to sign an informedconsent form.
The experimenter also verified whether theyunderstood the
instructions (all participants did). They werethen brought to the
interview room and interviewed by afemale interviewer. The
interview was audio and videotaped.The participants could see the
camera and audio recorder; theywere asked to try to ignore them and
act as natural as possible.The interviewer had the list of
questions (see Appendix)in front of her and asked them all in the
same order. The inter-viewer always started with general questions,
before movingon to more detailed questions. The reason for this is
thatgeneral factual questions are typically asked first in an
interview (Fisher, 2010), and it makes more sense to start
aninterview with expected questions followed by unexpectedquestions
than vice versa. Starting an interview with unex-pected questions
is most likely to be perceived as odd. Theinterview questions were
designed to elicit as much detail ofany type as possible from both
truth tellers and liars. Becausetruth tellers tend to give more
detail in all interviews, the detaileliciting questioning may have
increased the difference indetail between truth tellers and liars.
After the interview, theparticipants completed a questionnaire that
asked for theirdemographics and motivation. After completing the
ques-tionnaires, the participants were debriefed and given some
sweets or a credit for the participant pool in exchange fortheir
participation.
Data analysis
The interviews were transcribed and coded. The coder, blindto
the veracity status of the transcript, reads each answercarefully
and marked every spatial and temporal detail theinterviewee gave.
The second rater, also blind to the veracitystatus of the
transcripts, coded 10% of the sample. This coderwas given
information about exactly what constitutes atemporal and a spatial
detail. The second coder was givenone interview to practice on,
which was then compared withthe first raters coding. On the basis
of this comparison, thesecond coder received further training.
After this, the secondcoder rated the other interviews
independently. The correlationbetween the two coders was very high:
r= .88 (p = 0.01) forspatial detail and r=0.98 (p< 0.001) for
temporal detail.For the specific times, the first and second coder
came tofull agreement.
Results
The average amount of words used by the participants in
theinterviews was 1134 (SD = 889.6). The interviews lasted
onaverage 447.5 second (SD = 274.54), 7 minutes and 27.5
seconds. A multivariate analysis of variance was conductedwith
veracity as the independent variable, number of spatialdetails,
number of temporal details and number of specifictimes as the
dependent variables and word count as a covariate.
The multivariate tests show a significant effect of
veracity(F(3, 81) = 2.70, p = 0.05, partial 2 = 0.09) and a
significantcovariate effect of word count (F(3, 81) = 147.09, p
< 0.001,partial 2 = 0.85). The between subject effects show that
theeffect of veracity was significant for spatial and
temporaldetails, but not for specific times (spatial: F(1, 85) =
4.26,
p = 0.04, partial 2 = 0.05; temporal: F(1, 85) = 5.10,p = 0.03,
partial 2= 0.06; specific times: F(1, 85) = 1.16,p = 0.28, partial
2= 0.01) (see Table 1 for Means and SDs).For spatial, temporal
details and specific times, there isa significant effect of the
covariate word count (all F(1,85) > 14.35, all p< 0.001, all
partial 2> 0.15).
Discussion
The results show that the participants veracity affected
theamount of spatial and temporal detail they gave in
theirinterview. Truth tellers gave more spatial and temporal
detailthan liars, which supports Hypothesis 1. Truth tellers did
not
significantly mention more specific times than liars, whichmay
have been caused by the low occurrence of mentioningspecific times
by both truth tellers and liars (Table 1).
Experiment 1 was conducted in the lab. Although the truthtelling
participants were discussing their own intentionsrather than
intentions induced by the experimenter, this isstill a rather
artificial set up. The participants were in astrange place that was
unrelated to their intention, and theintentions they spoke about
could occur weeks or months later.They also knew about the
interview several days beforehand.To increase the similarity
between the experimental situationand the real life situation of
interviews at border controlor transport security, Experiment 2 was
conducted on thePortsmouthCaen ferry. The participants were
interviewedabout their intended actions on the day after they
disembarked.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 investigates whether the finding that truthtellers
mention more spatial and temporal information thanliars when
talking about an intention also occurs in a morenatural setting and
with shorter interviews than in Experiment 1(Hypothesis II). It
also investigates whether more temporalinformation can be elicited
by using a time prompting
question. Because truth tellers are more inclined to
mentiontemporal information than liars, it is hypothesised that
truthtellers will respond more strongly to a subtle time prompt
thanliars, increasing the difference between the two groups
inreporting temporal information. This increase in detail willlead
to a better classification of truth tellers and liars when aprompt
is included (Hypothesis III). The increase is predicted
Table 1. Study 1: The amount of spatial and temporal details
andspecific time given as a function of veracity
Truth M (SD) Lie M (SD)
Spatial details 38.50 (32.43) 31.45 (19.97)a
Temporal details 30.43 (18.76) 24.68 (15.39)a
Specific times 0.36 (0.96) 0.16 (0.65)
N.B.aindicates significant differences
Spatial and temporal details in lie detection 103
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit.
Psychol. 27: 101106 (2013)
-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
4/6
to be in the temporal information variables only, because
theprompt is specifically directed at time (Hypothesis IV).
Method
Participants
A total of 84 people travelling on the PortsmouthCaen ferry
(36 males and 48 females) took part. Their average age
wasM=58years old (SD = 12.6).
Design
We used a two (Veracity) by two (Question)
between-subjectsfactorial design. The Veracity factor consists of
liars versustruth tellers. The Question factor consists of time
promptversus control. As in Experiment 1, the dependent
variableswere the amount of spatial detail, the amount of temporal
detailand the amount of specific times that the participant gave.
Thesame coding scheme was used as in Experiment 1.
ProcedureIn order to increase the ecological validity, this
experimentwas conducted outside the lab. The experiment took place
onthe PortsmouthCaen ferry, a 6-hour journey, because it
wasbelieved that this would be a good place to find participantswho
intended to travel further. The experimenter approachedpassengers
on the ferry and asked whether they wouldagree to be interviewed
and audio taped for a study about liedetection. An estimated 75% of
the passengers who wereapproached volunteered to take part. This
percentage ofvolunteers is relatively high, possibly because most
passengerson the ferry were not too busy. If they agreed to
participate,
they were asked to sign an informed consent form. The
exper-imenter asked for their sex, age and their plans for their
trip.The last question was used to establish ground truth.
Theparticipants were randomly assigned to be a truth teller or
liar.The interviewer was blind to veracity condition. The
truthtellers (N= 42) were then given the following instructions:An
interviewer will come and ask you for details about yourtrip.
Please answer truthfully. Try to convince the interviewerthat you
are telling the truth. The liars (N=42) were told:An interviewer
will come and ask you for details about yourtrip. Please lie to
them and pretend you are making a differenttrip than the one you in
fact are going to make. Try to convincethe interviewer that you are
telling the truth. Liars were not
given any instruction about what their lie should be.
Allparticipants had a few minutes to prepare, during which
theexperimenter collected the interviewer, who had waited
else-where while the participant was briefed. The participants
weregiven the opportunity for extra preparation time, but
noneneeded this. The interviewer introduced him/herself, gavethem
the Dictaphone to speak into like a microphone and askedthe
passengers for their plans at their destination via a
singlequestion, using either the control question or time prompt
ques-tion. The control question was: Please describe in as
muchdetail as possible what you are going to do today at your
desti-nation? The time prompt question was: Please describe in
as
much detail as possible what your time-table is for today at
yourdestination? The interviewer listened attentively and
allowedthe passenger to say as much as they wanted but did notask
follow-up questions. When the passenger had finished
answering the single question, the interviewer thanked the
pas-senger for taking part in the experiment and gave him/her
adebriefing form and a bag of sweets. The entire procedure
(frombeing approached by the interviewer to receiving the
debriefingform and candy) lasted only for a few minutes.
Data analysisThe short interviews were transcribed and coded by
the samerater as in Experiment 1. Twenty five percent of the
samplewas coded for reliability by the second coder, who had
someexperience with coding for spatial and temporal details. Shewas
given exact definitions and examples of both types ofdetail. The
correlation between the two coders was high:r= .70 (p< 0.001)
for spatial detail and r=0.94 (p< 0.001)for temporal detail. All
interviews were reliability coded bythe third coder for specific
times. After the first run, theyagreed of 83 on 84 interviews. The
remaining case wasagreed upon after discussion.
Results
The average number of words used by participants in the
inter-views was 33.7 (SD = 20.71). The interviews lasted on
average46.77 second (SD = 17.93). A multivariate analysis of
variancewas conducted with Veracity and Question as the
independentvariables, word count as a covariate and the number of
spatialdetails, number of temporal details and number of
specifictimes as the dependent variables (see Table 2 for the
meansand SD). The multivariate tests show a significant effect
ofQuestion (F(3, 77)=4.42, p = 0.01, partial 2 =0.15) and
asignificant covariate effect of word count (F(3, 77) = 12.71,
p< 0.001, partial 2
= 0.33). There were no signifi
cant effectsfor Veracity (F(3, 77) = 2.09, p = 0.11, partial 2
=0.08)or the interaction effect between Veracity and Question(F(3,
77) = 0.93, p = 0.43, partial 2 = 0.04). Hypothesis IVwas related
to temporal details but not to spatial details;and univariate
Veracity tests are therefore justified despitethe absence of a
multivariate Veracity main effect. As wepredicted in Hypothesis IV,
Veracity has a significant effecton specific times (F(1, 83)=6.22,
p = 0.02, partial 2= 0.07),but not on spatial or temporal details
(all F(1, 83)< 0.33, all
p> 0.57, all partial 2< 0.004). Question has a
significanteffect on specific times (F(1, 83) = 13.18, p = 0.001,
partial2= 0.14), but not on spatial or temporal details (all
F(1,
83)< 0.60, all p> 0.44, all partial 2< 0.008). The
covariateword count had an effect on spatial (F(1, 83)= 22.02,
p
-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
5/6
(F(1, 83) = 1.61, p = 0.21, partial 2 = 0.02). There were
nosignificant univariate Veracity by Question interaction
effects(all F(1, 83)< 1.69, all p> 0.20, all partial 2<
0.02).
Discriminant analysis showed that in the prompt condition,61.9%
of participants were classified correctly based onspecific times (l
=.91, w2(1)=3.88, p =0.049). The modelhad a lie bias, 76.2% of
liars, but only 47.6% of truth tellerswere correctly classified. In
the control condition, 54.8% ofparticipants could be classified
correctly based on specifictimes (l=.95, w2(1)=2.03, p =0.16),
which is not signifi-cantly above chance level. In other words, the
prompt questionincreased accuracy as predicted in Hypotheses III
and IV.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Experiment 1 revealed a significant effect of Veracity onspatial
and temporal details, but not on specific times. Thissupports
Hypothesis 1. Experiment 2 showed a significant
difference between truth tellers and liars on specific times,and
this supports Hypothesis II. The results of the
discriminantanalysis showed that classification of truth tellers
and liars wasenhanced by asking a subtle time prompt question,
supportingHypothesis III. As predicted in Hypothesis IV, the effect
of thetime prompt was on a time related detail. There was no
signif-icant interaction effect between veracity and question in
themultivariate or univariate tests, so the support for
HypothesesIII and IV is not unequivocal. The reason why specific
timeswas significantly affected by Veracity in Experiment 2, butnot
in Experiment 1, while temporal detail was significantlyaffected by
Veracity in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment
2, may lie in the difference in length of the interviews in
thetwo Experiments. The Means (Tables 1 and 2) of specific
timeswere in fact not very different between the two experiments;
inExperiment, 1 the SDs were higher. The mean word count andthe
mean amount of temporal details were around 30 timeshigher in
Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2. It seems thatgiving spatial and
temporal detail is dependent on the opportu-nity to use many words.
The specific question asked inExperiment 2 resulted in participants
giving a specific timerelated reply rather than vaguer spatial or
temporal information.
The two experiments combined show that the amount ofspatial and
temporal detail participants give about that futureimage is
influenced by whether or not they truly plan to
execute the intention and the phrasing of the questions. It
islikely that the effects of intention and phrasing are caused
bydifferent processes. The fact that recalling a truthful
intentionleads to the recall of more details is most likely the
result of agreateractivation of truthful intentions. That is, the
human brainseems to prioritise intentions (Goschke & Kuhl,
1993), presum-ably this helps in remembering that you have an
intention andwhat the intention is. It may also help to execute the
intention(Marsh, Hicks, & Bryan, 1999). This greater activation
of truth-ful intentions probably leads to a greater mental
availability ofdetails either by stimulating the formation of a
more detailedepisodic future image or by activating a more detailed
mental
script of the future event (Granhag & Knieps, 2010; Atance
&ONeill, 2001). The phrasing of the questions does not in
itselfmake the future image or script more detailed, but rather
itprompts the participants to say more about that image. It
may be that the extra details mentioned need to be
activelyretrieved and that participants do not do think about
themwhen they are not prompted, or, alternatively, they do
thinkabout them when they are not prompted but decide
againstmentioning them. Regarding the latter, research has shown
thatpeople have a lot of information available to them that they
donot convey without being prompted to do so (Fisher, 2010;Fisher,
Milne, & Bull, 2011). Future research may investigatewhich of
these hypotheses is true. If these details need tobe actively
retrieved, memory enhancement techniquesmay be beneficial to
extract more detailed information. Ifthe interviewee holds back
these details, then they should beencouraged to answer a question
in as much detail as possible.
Two aspects of the experiments may benefit real-life situa-tions
where investigators attempt to distinguish between trulyintended
and unintended future images. First, the more spatialand temporal
detail someone gives the more likely it is thatthey are describing
a true intention, if the interview is long.If the interview is very
short, a participant mentioning a
specific time is a sign they are telling the truth. Second,
thespeaker can be prompted to give more temporal information,and
such prompts will affect those with a true intention morethan those
with a false intention, thereby increasing thenumber of correct
classifications of truth tellers and liars.
To conclude, the present experiment shows that longerinterviews
contain more differences between truth tellers andliars than short
ones. However, even in very short interviews,there are cues to
deception. Specific phrasing of the questioncan elicit these cues
in short interviews and improve theclassification of truth tellers
and liars.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Jo Fraser and EdwardAgobiani for
their help in data collection.
REFERENCES
Atance, C. M., & ONeill, D. (2001). Episodic future
thinking. Trends inCognitive Sciences, 5(12), 533539.
Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in
prison: Linguisticclassification of prisoners truthful and
deceptive natural language.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313329.Burgoon, J. K.,
Twitchell, D. P., Jensen, M. L., Meservy, T. O., Adkins, M.,
Kruse, J., . . . Younger, R. E. (2009). Detecting concealment of
intent in
transportation screening: A proof of concept. IEEE Transactions
on Intelli-gent Transportation Systems, 10, 103112.
DArgembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2004). Phenomenal
characteris-tics associated with projecting oneself back into the
past and forward intothe future: Influence of valence and temporal
distance. Consciousnessand Cognition, 13, 844858.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L.
M., Charlton,K. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception.
Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74118.
Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal
and Crimi-nological Psychology, 15, 2538.
Fisher, R., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing
cooperative witnesses.Current Directions in Psychological Science,
20, 1619.
Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of
intentions: Persistingactivation in memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 19(5), 12111226.Granhag, P. A. (2010). On
the psycho-legal study of true and false intentions:
Dangerous waters and some stepping stones. The Open
CriminologyJournal, 3, 3743.
Spatial and temporal details in lie detection 105
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit.
Psychol. 27: 101106 (2013)
-
7/29/2019 vrij 2013
6/6
Granhag, P. A., & Knieps, M. (2010). Episodic future
thought: Illuminatingthe trademarks of forming true and false
intentions. Applied CognitivePsychology, 25(2), 274280.
doi:10.1002/acp.1674
Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental
phenomenologicalapproach. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 117(4), 390394.
Johnson, M. K.,Foley, M. A., Suengas,A. G., & Raye, C. L.
(1988). Phenomenalcharacteristics of memories for perceived and
imagined autobiographicalevents. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 117(4), 371376.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bryan, E. S. (1999). The
activation of unrelatedand cancelled intentions. Memory &
Cognition, 27(2), 320327.
Masip, J., Sporer, S., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005).
The detection ofdeception with the reality monitoring approach: A
review of the empiricalevidence. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 11,
99122.
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive
neuroscience ofconstructive memory: Remembering the past and
imagining the future.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, 362, 773786.
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2008).
Episodic simulationof future events: Concepts, data and
application. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1124, 3960.Steller, M. (1989). Recent
developments in statement analysis. In J . C. Yuille
(Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135154). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative
review of the
first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11,
341.Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and
opportunities
(2nd edn). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, ltd.Vrij,
A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting
deceit via
analyses of verbal and nonverbal behaviour in children and
adults.Human Communication Research, 30(1), 841.
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Lying
aboutflying: Thefirst experiment to detect false intent.
Psychology, Crime, & Law, 17(7),611620.
Vrij,A., Leal, S., Mann, S. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2010). A
comparison betweenlying about intentions and past activities:
Verbal cues and detection accuracy.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 212218.
doi:10.1002/acp.1665Watanabe, H. (2005). Semantic and episodic
prediction of memory for
plans. Japanese Psychological Research, 47(1), 4045.
APPENDIX 1
THE QUESTION LIST OF EXPERIMENT 1.
(1) Where are you travelling to?(2) What is the main purpose of
your trip?
(3) Have you made this trip before?(4) If you made it before,
did you go for the same
purpose?(5) If the previous time(s) was for a different reason,
what
was the purpose then?(6) What is the most important place youll
go to on
your trip? Follow up until the participant picks
onesituation/event that is in one particular place, if he/she has
more than one image make them pick theclearest, most typical
one.
(7) Do you have a mental picture of this? yes or no?(8) In your
picture, where are you?(9) Who else is there?
(10) Please tell me in as much detail as possible what youcan
see, hear, smell, taste and feel?
(11) Please tell me in as much detail as possible what
youimagine youre going to do in this picture?
(12) Do you want to add anything?(13) How are you going to
travel to your destination?
(14) How long will the journey take?(15) With whom are you
travelling?(16) If you have to wait during your journey, for
example in
the airport or changing train stations, what will you dowhile
youre waiting?
(17) Please describe in as much detail as possible what youcan
see/ hear during the journey?
(18) What is the first thing you will do when you arrive?(19) Do
you want to add anything?(20) Please tell me in as much detail as
possible what you
had to do to plan this trip?(21) Please tell me in which order
you did the planning?
Whatfi
rst, what second, what last?(22) What was the easiest to
plan?(23) What was the hardest?(24) While you were preparing your
trip, did you make any
alterations to your original plan?(25) If so what and why?(26)
Do you want to add anything?
106 L. Warmelink et al.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit.
Psychol. 27: 101106 (2013)
