Cargando…

Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions

Prospection is thinking about possible future states of the world. Commitment to perform a future action—commonly referred to as intention—is a specific type of prospection. This knowledge is relevant when trying to assess whether a stated intention is a lie or the truth. An important observation is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knieps, Melanie, Granhag, Pär A., Vrij, Aldert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25071648
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00677
_version_ 1782324369427529728
author Knieps, Melanie
Granhag, Pär A.
Vrij, Aldert
author_facet Knieps, Melanie
Granhag, Pär A.
Vrij, Aldert
author_sort Knieps, Melanie
collection PubMed
description Prospection is thinking about possible future states of the world. Commitment to perform a future action—commonly referred to as intention—is a specific type of prospection. This knowledge is relevant when trying to assess whether a stated intention is a lie or the truth. An important observation is that thinking of, and committing to, future actions often evoke vivid and detailed mental images. One factor that affects how specific a person experiences these simulations is location-familiarity. The purpose of this study was to examine to what extent location-familiarity moderates how liars and truth tellers describe a mental image in an investigative interview. Liars were instructed to plan a criminal act and truth tellers were instructed to plan a non-criminal act. Before they could carry out these acts, the participants were intercepted and interviewed about the mental images they may have had experienced in this planning phase. Truth tellers told the truth whereas liars used a cover story to mask their criminal intentions. As predicted, the results showed that the truth tellers reported a mental image significantly more often than the liars. If a mental image was reported, the content of the descriptions did not differ between liars and truth tellers. In a post interview questionnaire, the participants rated the vividness (i.e., content and clarity) of their mental images. The ratings revealed that the truth tellers had experienced their mental images more vividly during the planning phase than the liars. In conclusion, this study indicates that both prototypical and specific representations play a role in prospection. Although location-familiarity did not moderate how liars and truth tellers describe their mental images of the future, this study allows some interesting insights into human future thinking. How these findings can be helpful for distinguishing between true and false intentions will be discussed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4083357
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40833572014-07-28 Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions Knieps, Melanie Granhag, Pär A. Vrij, Aldert Front Psychol Psychology Prospection is thinking about possible future states of the world. Commitment to perform a future action—commonly referred to as intention—is a specific type of prospection. This knowledge is relevant when trying to assess whether a stated intention is a lie or the truth. An important observation is that thinking of, and committing to, future actions often evoke vivid and detailed mental images. One factor that affects how specific a person experiences these simulations is location-familiarity. The purpose of this study was to examine to what extent location-familiarity moderates how liars and truth tellers describe a mental image in an investigative interview. Liars were instructed to plan a criminal act and truth tellers were instructed to plan a non-criminal act. Before they could carry out these acts, the participants were intercepted and interviewed about the mental images they may have had experienced in this planning phase. Truth tellers told the truth whereas liars used a cover story to mask their criminal intentions. As predicted, the results showed that the truth tellers reported a mental image significantly more often than the liars. If a mental image was reported, the content of the descriptions did not differ between liars and truth tellers. In a post interview questionnaire, the participants rated the vividness (i.e., content and clarity) of their mental images. The ratings revealed that the truth tellers had experienced their mental images more vividly during the planning phase than the liars. In conclusion, this study indicates that both prototypical and specific representations play a role in prospection. Although location-familiarity did not moderate how liars and truth tellers describe their mental images of the future, this study allows some interesting insights into human future thinking. How these findings can be helpful for distinguishing between true and false intentions will be discussed. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4083357/ /pubmed/25071648 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00677 Text en Copyright © 2014 Knieps, Granhag and Vrij. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Knieps, Melanie
Granhag, Pär A.
Vrij, Aldert
Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title_full Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title_fullStr Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title_full_unstemmed Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title_short Been there before? Examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
title_sort been there before? examining “familiarity” as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25071648
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00677
work_keys_str_mv AT kniepsmelanie beentherebeforeexaminingfamiliarityasamoderatorfordiscriminatingbetweentrueandfalseintentions
AT granhagpara beentherebeforeexaminingfamiliarityasamoderatorfordiscriminatingbetweentrueandfalseintentions
AT vrijaldert beentherebeforeexaminingfamiliarityasamoderatorfordiscriminatingbetweentrueandfalseintentions