Discriminating Between True and False Intentions: Questions to Pose and Cues to Use

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