Methods for Increased Discernment of Deception

Methods for Increased Discernment of DeceptionGetting to the TruthA Review of Information Gathering for the Purpose of Establishing theVeracity of Certain Events with Recommendations for ApplicationIn consideration of the not simply punishing the guilty but in addition, for the purpose of the prevention of further crime, law enforcement officials have a significant need for entropy from witnesses and suspects. This information must, above all, be accurate and it must be gained by a legal means in a means that can be implemented often without extensive personnel or outgo in a timely manner. Interestingly enough, despite the general regard of being regarded as experts and professionals in the information gathering business and despite variable degrees of training or experience, numerous studies have demonstrated than nearly all police officers perform at nearly the same levels as untrained civilians as they both tend to hover only slightly above that of a pure determine of 50/50. T hough these studies produce somewhat varying rates, it is alpha to not that there is little consistent validity that certain populations are demonstrably better at detecting deception than untrained or chance selections (Vrij 2004, p. 159 Vrij, et al. 2004, p. 283 Kassin Gudjonsson 2004, p. 37 Mann, et al. 2004, p. 137).In gathering information, the label of interrogation is attached to processes if the person being forelanded is viewed as a primary suspect while the to a greater extent kind term of interview attaches to those viewed as simply a witness, potential witness or other information gathering purpose. In light of this, one big businessman rightly assume that the chief difference in this labeling of process is the presumptions of the interviewer or interrogator. In the process of interrogation, there is generally an assumption of guilt or at least culpable populateledge for which it is quite possible for induced interviewer bias to play a significant role in the cor e (Wright Allison 2004, p. 138 Gudjonsson 1992, p. 14). This bias is patent through the reply of one police officer in regards to this issue that, we dont interrogate innocent people (Kassin Gudjonsson 2004, p. 36). Though it could be called an extempore remark, this is fairly typical of the extent of bias that would credibly result in a false-positive type error stemming from the subsequent behaviors such as attempts at forcing the theme to talk by not necessarily physical means (Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 57-58).Why People LieTo answer such a question, we might simply as well ask, Why do people tell the faithfulness? While these are simply two sides of the same coin, the question brings us no enveloping(prenominal) to the answer except that there are a potential myriad reasons yet by viewing it in this manner, some insight is possible. For example, in teaching values to groups to young people, one system to force the consideration of ethics is to ask the question, Why one should not steal? This purposefully leading question generally gets rejoinders that either indicates an element of fundamental morality such as, Because it is wrong or, alternatively, some variant of a fear of getting caught and the ensuing punishment. Similar to this, in consideration of the question of why people stay, the same tenets likely apply, that is they do so to escape punishment or other consequences or maybe they do so based on the idea similar to the proposition of the lesser of two evils as might be the case when one tells an altruistic reside to protect another or to save a relationship (Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 10-11).In studies on lying, aside from the fact that it occurs more than one might think, there seem to be, in the minds of those who tell a lie, different types or degrees of lying depending on the stakes, the outcome and the person(s) deceived (Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 10-11). For example, if a good thing such as a job comes from a lie, it is more accept able than a theft that occurs by deception. While this is likely how many people think, it is nonetheless a very tricky slope and the good done to one and the harm to another is quite debatable, depending on if one is the victim or the perpetrator.On method of gaining insight into the decision to tell a lie that assumes rationality, that is a conscious decision that a lie is in their calculated best interest, is to utilize the combined approach of pauperization theory with the same type of payout ratio analysis used in decision risk modeling. With regards to motivation, one applicable model is that of Vrooms expectation Theory in which the willingness of a person to perform some action is mediated by the interaction three variables (Dreher Dougherty 2002, pp. 34 36)Valence The degree to which the outcome is desired.Instrumentality The extent to which successful performance would result in the desired outcome.Expectancy The likelihood of being able to perform a given task.In evaluating business decisions, companies will often ramp up a formal payout analysis in which the likelihood of positive outcome is weighed against the payout of success and the payout of failure. For example, the company that has a 50% chance of striking gold in a certain mine whose value is $10M but costs $1M to discover, regardless of success should rationally pursue this extract which has a projected payoff of $4M (.5 x $10M less $1M expense). While this process of decision-making is easily illustrated utilizing financial examples, the fact that a decision has value to an individual is appropriate. Thus, when a person chooses to lie, they have consciously or not, evaluated their options and, from their perspective made a choice that lie outweighs the payoff of truth against the two possible costs of lying, that of the lie not being believed and that of being caught not telling the truth (Gonjonsson 1992, p. 21). Thus, by seeking to understand why and how, one can effectively understand who which complement the investigator to get inside the head of the person being questioned (Douglas Olshaker 1999, p. 17).The Problems of ConfessionsAs indicated preliminaryly, the situational context of the interrogation process combined with the fact that police officers most likely have some degree of training in conjunction with the experience of dealing with deception extensively in their daily work yield the predictable result of disbelieving people who are innocent with a great deal of confidence (Kassin Gudjonsson 2004, p. 33). The well-documented presence of interviewer bias creates this situation in which only statements that support the interviewers already held beliefs (Wright Allison 2004, p. 139). This process, in an estimated 30% of the roughly 60% of cases that in which someone knowledgees, leads to an eventual confession of something culpable (Loftus 2004, p. I Gudjonsson 1992, p. 50 Pearse, et al. 1998, pp. 1 2). Like the segmentation in the st udies citing the ability to detect a lie, there are variance indications of the extent to which false confessions are given with the true number difficult to account (Memom, et al. 2003, p. 76).Despite the problems in getting a true assessment of the problem, there is agreement that certain types of people are much more likely to confess than other groups. For example, youth or those who suffer from some mental disorder or diminished capacity are prone to provide information which is unrelable, lead or self-incriminating (Pearse, et al. 1998, p. 2). In data collected on real-life police interviews with the accompanying real-life consequences, research revealed four generally applicable predictors of the likelihood of a confession (Pearse, et al. 1998, pp. 9 13)Age 60% of confessors in this inquiry were under 25 while 60% of deniers were over 25.Drug Use within the last 24 hours was just over 3x as likely to confess.The presence of counsel reduced the rate of confessions by the rate as when no counsel was present.Prison or previous documented criminal experience decreased the odds of a confession by as nave subjects.With this information, it is possible to implement practices and procedures by which the pursuit of truth by managing situations in which false confessions due the subjects succumbing to perceived pressure to come up with something that will be rewarded is possible. These practices should likely include (Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 82 85)Using more information gathering-type approaches rather than tricky techniques designed to elicit a confession.Record all interviews and interrogations.Include legal counsel that do more than simply block out administrative issues but act in the interest of the client.Identify and require an audit of particularly at-risk persons.Require additional evidence to corroborate a confession.Discernment Techniques Raising the Odds of sensingPerhaps most striking about the detection of deception is that there is no sta ndard Pinnochios thread or nonverbal behavior that exists to signal an intent to deceive (Vrij 2004, p. 160 Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 11 12). This fallacy is one in which people superimpose how they might observe with how they think another should feel and, with this in mind, other indicators of deception will be examinedMost people are somewhat familiar with the typical lie detector which utilizes subtle changes in autonomic measures such as galvanic skin responses, heart rate, blood pressure and respiration as correlates of an emotional response to a specific stimulus indicated the subject is concealing knowledge. Under controlled conditions, with a trained operator and a voluntary subject, accuracy rates as game as 95% have been claimed, this apparatus in no longer acceptable in court a a sole source for curse (Gilbert 2004, pp. 138 140 Memom, et al. 2003, pp. 21 25 Bennett Hess 2001, pp. 160 161).The use of polygraphs as well as electroencephalograms (EEG) to record the a utonomic responses to questioning have made to the detection of deception, specifically the attempt to hide specific knowledge, much more difficult. As the mind-set is very much an organ characterized by the transmission of electrical impulses, its activity is gibe to the conscious and unconscious information it processes. One very specific component of the brainwave, upon stimulation by a question or picture, evokes an excitation in brain wave patterns to the degree that a novel meaningful stimulus can be discerned by the researcher, regardless of what the subject claims. This component, dubbed the P300 as it is positive in focussing and it occurs 300 milliseconds after stimulation, can be defeated through specific means but for the usual criminal type that does not read journals of physiopsychology, it is a very reliable detector of cognitive effort to deceive (Rosenfeld, et al. 2004, pp. 205 206).This insight is somewhat complimentary to a less equipment-intensive method in w hich the interviewer pays close help to the level of cognitive effort the subject is using. This is based on the reasonable assumption that a liar, in keeping their story straight, must work harder to construct a believable falsehood (Kassin Gudjonsson 2004, p. 39 Bennett Hess 2001, p. 160). In a truthful recollection, it is possible that details may be remembered at one point and omitted in another but the story retains the same essence. This is especially observable when the subject is questioned in a way that takes the elements out of sequential order the difficulty in getting the details consistent takes considerable effort and is not always successful. This method of deception detection is dubbed implicit as one is considering the element of cognitive effort required to keep the story straight rather than simply if they are lying or not in order to determine the truthfulness of the statement(s) made (Vrij 2004, p. 172). Complimentary to this and working in the investigators favor is that the subject in most likely not aware of what the police know and is thus at a significant disadvantage with regards to knowing how much information to disclose and how much to withhold (Vrij 2004, p. 170). Similarly, the focal point of the investigation should be upon what the subjects says and, to the degree possible, what the subject does not say through apparent efforts to conceal knowledge.In conclusion, as a result of both seeking to understand the how and why, a law enforcement official can better determine the ultimate culpability for a crime. In consideration of this information the following are presented as suggested methods for increased discernment of deceptionKeep an open mind As indicated, the common view that subjects are lying only when their lips are moving is sanitary evidence of interrogator bias and is likely to find exactly what the interrogator is looking for regardless of the truth.You are not interrogating Pinocchio A belief that liars fidge t may or may not hold. The subject may be nervous as this could be their first questioning. They may have been drinking ad infinitem.Do not interrupt, do not release information unless necessary The fact that they do not know what you know is a very good thing. This information asymmetry works to both gather more information and better evaluate it.Do not look at the persons panorama Facial clues are unreliable, person to person, and a layer of misleading data upon the real focus, the meaning of the interview. Though nonverbal clues may be present, research indicates that content issues such as omissions or inconsistencies are most likely where clues reside.Consider the amount of effort the subject is using By using the implicit method of deception detection, more reliable, valid assessments are possible than simply trying to determine if the subject is lying.Record the interview This is recommended not just for later palingenesis and protection of all involved but such as ste p allows the interview to focus on the content.Works ConsultedBennett, W.W., and Hess, K.M. (2001). Criminal Investigation, 6th edition. Stamford, Connecticut Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1999). The systema skeletale of Motive. New York, New York Pocket Books.Dreher, G.F., and Dougherty, T.W. (2002). Human Resource Strategy A Behavioral Perspective for the General Manager. Boston, Massachusetts McGrawHill Irwin.Gilbert, J.N. (2004). Criminal Investigation, 6th edition. top(prenominal) Saddle River, New Jersey Pearson Prentice-Hall.Gudjonsson, G. (1992). The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony. Chichester, UK Wiley Sons.Kassin, S.M. and Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004). The Psychology of Confessions A Review of the Literature and Issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (5)2, pp. 33 67.Loftus, E. (2004). The stupefy in Confessions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (5)2, pp. i ii.Memon, A. Vrij, A. Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and Law, 2nd Edition. Chichester, UK Wiley Sons.Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G.H., Clare, I.C.H., and Rutter, S. (1998). Police Interviewing and Psychological Vulnerabilities Predicting the Likelihood of a Confession. journal of Community Applied Psycholog, 8, pp. 1 21.Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., and Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychopysiology, 41, pp. 205 219.Vrij, A., Evans, H., Akehurst, L., and Mann, S. ( 2004). Rapid Judgements in Assessing Verbal and Nonverbal Cues Their Potential for Deception Researchers and Lie Detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, pp. 283 296.Vrij, A. (2004). Why Professionals Fail to Catch Liars and How they Can Improve. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 9, pp. 159 181.