| Abstract [eng] |
Currently, an increasing number of studies are analyzing verbal cues of deception in individual’s intentions – aiming to differentiate between genuine and deceptive ones. Since this is a relatively new research field, there are not many scientific studies investigating deceptive intentions, and the existing ones apply different research designs and coding systems, which complicates the overall analysis of results. To identify verbal cues in true and deceptive intentions and to determine how these cues manifest depending on the order of anticipated and unanticipated questions, an experiment was conducted with 101 participants. These participants had planned a trip between April and August and had made efforts to ensure that the intention would be realized in the future. The participants, aged 19 – 30, were randomly assigned to one of four groups: truth or lie group, and either a regular question order (anticipated – unanticipated) or a reversed order (unanticipated – anticipated). The study involved a remote structured interview during which participants were asked about their planned trip – some were instructed to tell the truth about their plans, while others were instructed to lie. The structured interview included four anticipated and four unanticipated questions. After analyzing the verbal narratives of the 101 participants, it was found that the accounts of truth-tellers were subjectively rated as more plausible, contained information that was potentially more verifiable, and included more specific time and date, and location details. Narrative length, number of perceptual and spatial details, emotion desriptions, questions asked, spontaneous corrections, and contradictions did not differ between the truth-teller and liars. The sequence of anticipated and unanticipated questions had an effect on the number of specific time and date details provided by liars about their planned trip – liars provided more of these details when the interview followed the standart question sequence (anticipated first, then unanticipated) compared to the reversed sequence (unanticipated first, then anticipated). It would be advisable for future studies to further investigate the impact of anticipated and unanticipated questions, applying different sequences of such questions during interviews with larger sample sizes, in order to more accurately identify verbal cues of true and false intentions. |
