Forensic Psychology
Page 45
9.9.2 Discriminating Between True and False Intentions
Despite the fact that deception detection is one of the most popular subtopics within forensic psychology, it is only in recent years that the researchers’ attention has turned to statements concerning future rather than past events. This is noteworthy considering the societal value of being able to distinguish between persons who are lying and persons who are telling the truth about their intentions (e.g. “Can you tell me why you bought that gun?”). Whereas the paradigmatic deception detection research finds its applications in traditional law enforcement contexts, research on how to discriminate between true and false intentions is more relevant to security and human intelligence contexts (Vrij & Granhag, 2014).
Granhag and Mac Giolla (2014) reviewed this emerging field and identified four major lines of research, on: (1) physiological measures; (2) implicit measures; (3) strategic interviewing; and (4) episodic future thought (EFT) and mental images. Below we will present some promising findings from one of these lines; strategic interviewing in order to elicit cues to true and false intentions.
There is a series of studies on true and false intentions inspired by the previously discussed “unanticipated questions” approach. This research rests on the assumption that most intentions demand planning (Malle, Moses & Baldwin, 2001). In brief, a person who is telling the truth about his/her intention should be able to tell about the planning phase, whereas a person who lies about his/her intention should have much less to say with respect to the planning (why plan for something you never intend to carry out?). Research shows that (a) questions about the planning phase are indeed perceived as much less anticipated than questions about the intentions per se, (b) truth tellers and liars provide equally detailed answers to questions targeting their intentions (i.e. liars’ preparation pays off), and (c) truth tellers’ answers to questions targeting the planning phase (unanticipated questions) are much more detailed than the liars’ answers to the same questions (i.e. the interviewers’ strategic interviewing pays off).
9.10 TRAINING TO DETECT DECEPTION
Popular books like Lie Spotting (Meyer, 2010) promise the reader secret insights on lie detection. Such books may sell well, but tend to provide very unbalanced accounts on “cues to deceit”. Furthermore, there are many workshops offered on the same theme, and the message is clear: participate in this training programme and you will become a better lie-catcher! The effectiveness of these training programmes is rarely evaluated, therefore we know little about their real effectiveness. Turning to scientific studies on the effect of training, a first thing to note is that such studies have been conducted for quite some time (see Bull, 2004; Driskell, 2012). Second, the methodologies used in order to train the participants vary extensively over the different studies. For example, some programmes include information about cues to deception (e.g. Fiedler & Walka, 1993), other programmes include both information on cues to deception and outcome feedback about one’s own deception detection performance (e.g. Porter, Woodworth, & Birth, 2000), and there are programmes that aim to train the participants in how to interview to elicit cues to deceit (e.g. Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006).
Importantly, the effects of training are generally small. A meta-analysis by Frank and Feeley (2003) showed a very small overall positive effect in terms of deception detection accuracy. A recent meta-analysis by Hauch, Sporer, Michael and Meissner (2014) included 30 studies, and sends an interesting message: they identified a small to medium positive effect with respect to pinpointing liars, whereas they found no overall improvement with respect to pinpointing truth tellers. That is, overall the trained participants did a better job (after training) of catching liars, but they did not become better at spotting who was telling the truth. This result may partly be explained by the fact that many training programmes teach about “cues to deceit”, and this tends to evoke a lie bias (the participants will have a tendency to assess targets as “liars” more often than “truth tellers”). The study by Hauch and her colleagues also highlights factors that moderate the effectiveness of training, for example (a) it is only the training programmes focusing on the verbal content that tend to result in increased truth accuracy (training programmes focusing on non-verbal cues are generally not effective) and (b) the longer the training session, the larger the effect. The meta-analysis also shows that the large majority of the training studies conducted have used student samples, and therefore little is known about to what extent it is possible to train legal professionals to more reliably discriminate between truthful and deceptive statements.
9.11 CONCLUSIONS
Research on deception detection has exploded since the mid 1990s and it continues to grow. In an era of threat, violence and terrorism, a premium is placed on research dealing with security and control. We believe that research on deception detection has an important role to play in the struggle for justice and a safer society. However, in order for research to make a difference – to reach the desks of policy makers – several tough challenges must be dealt with. It is not enough to debunk the “fool-proof way to detect deception” claims flourishing in the media and in pseudoscience; researchers also need to pay close attention to their own activities. The time is more than ripe to move away from old-school deception detection studies (mapping people’s detection performance when passively watching brief video-clips containing no cues to deceit). In brief, the ecological validity of the overall research agenda must be increased. One way forward is to continue to explore the promising approaches found under the “strategic interviewing” umbrella, and to suggest and test new approaches that revolve around active and strategic interviewing in order to elicit and enhance cues to deception. The literature on deception detection is vast, but scholars in the field are still faced with many stimulating future challenges.
9.12 SUMMARY
In order to predict liars’ and truth teller’ behaviour, three different approaches have been suggested: the emotional approach, the cognitive load approach and the self-presentational perspective.
Research shows that people are poor at detecting deception. The main reasons are that cues to deception are very scarce (objective cues), and that people’s beliefs about cues to deception (subjective cues) are incorrect.
Statement validity analysis and reality monitoring are two methods for analysing a statement’s verbal content in order to detect deception. Scientific evaluation shows that none of these methods is perfect, but that they can be of help when assessing veracity. There is reason to be sceptical towards alternative methods such as scientific content analysis, voice stress analysis and layered voice-stress analysis, as these methods rest on a very weak theoretical ground, and lack empirical support.
Within the domain of psycho-physiological detection of deception, the Control Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT) are the two most common tests. While both have been criticised, they have been shown to have some discriminative value.
It is possible to identify a paradigm shift, where the aim of a new wave of research is to find strategic ways to interview in order to actively elicit diagnostic cues to deception. We reviewed three such approaches: the cognitive load approach, the unanticipated questions approach and the verifiability approach.
ESSAY/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
The area of deception detection is not very well developed in terms of theory. However, a number of approaches have been suggested in order to predict behavioural differences between liars and truth tellers. Name and describe three such approaches, and reflect on their similarities and differences.
Research shows that people’s deception detection performance is rather poor. How can this result be explained?
It is possible to identify two main techniques for analysing a statement’s verbal content in order to detect deception. Describe these two methods and their reliability and accuracy.
The chapter identifies a paradigm shift with respect to deception detection research
. Describe this new paradigm, In what way do the studies using this new paradigm differ from “old school” studies?
ANNOTATED READING LIST
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. The most comprehensive meta-analysis of the research on cues to deception, highlighting how few cues are consistently reliable.
Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. (Eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collection of papers by an international group of experts on various aspects of lying and deception.
Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Deception detection: Current challenges and cognitive approaches. (Eds.), Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. The most recent state-of-the-art volume covering all major approaches to deception detection: verbal, non-verbal and the polygraph.
Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. H. (2011). Memory detection: theory and application of the concealed information test. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The most extensive volume so far on the CIT, highlights the many and close links between memory and deception.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Aldert Vrij’s book is probably the most comprehensive treatment of the research literature on lie detection.
REFERENCES
Alonso-Quecuty, M. L. (1992). Deception detection and reality monitoring: A new answer to an old question? In F. Lösel, D. Bender , & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 328–332). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Beattie, G. W. (1981). A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 243–248.
Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527–541.
Ben-Shakhar, G., & Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception: A psychophysiological and international perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Blandón-Gitlin, I., Fenn, E., Masip, J., & Yoo, A. H. (2014). Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: Searching for cognitive mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 441–444.
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 151–163.
Bond Jr, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.
Bond Jr, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.
Bond Jr, C. F., Levine, T. R., & Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in nonverbal lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Vershuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 37–58). Chichester: Wiley.
Buckley, J. P. (2012). Detection of deception researchers need to collaborate with experienced practitioners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 126–127.
Bull, R. (2004). Training to detect deception from behavioural cues: attempts and problems. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 251–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Guerrero, L. K. (1995). Interpersonal deception IX: Effects of social skills and nonverbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 289–311.
Caso, L., Vrij, A., Mann, S. & DeLeo, G. (2006). Deceptive responses: The impact of verbal and nonverbal countermeasures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 99–111.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.
DePaulo, B. M., LeMay, C. S., & Epstein, J. A. (1991). Effects of importance of success and expectations for success on effectiveness at deceiving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 14–24.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioral cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driskell, J. E. (2012). Effectiveness of deception detection training: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 713–731.
Driscoll, L. N. (1994). A validity assessment of written statements from suspects in criminal investigations using the SCAN technique. Police Studies, 17, 77–88.
Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York: Norton.
Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–529.
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 757–767.
Eriksson, A., & Lacerda , F (2007). Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14, 169–193.
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313–324.
Fiedler, K., & Walka, I. (1993). Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics. Human Communication Research, 20, 199–223.
Frank, M. G., & Feeley, T. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 58–75.
Frank, M. G., & Svetieva, E. (2012). Lies worth catching involve both emotion and cognition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 131–133.
Furedy, J. J., & Heslegrave, R. J. (1991). The forensic use of the polygraph: A psychophysiological analysis of current trends and future prospects. In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles , & M. G. Coles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology, Vol. 4 (pp. 157–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Granhag, P. A., Andersson, L. O., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals’ beliefs about deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 103–119.
Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique: A conceptual overview. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Verschuere (Eds). Deception detection: New challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 231–252). Wiley Blackwell.
Granhag, P. A., & Mac Giolla, E. (2014). Preventing future crimes: Identifying markers of true and false intent. European Psychologist, 19, 195–206.
Grubin, D., & Madsen, L. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 357–369.
Hartwig, M. (2011). Methods in deception research. In B. Rosenfeld and S. Penrod (Eds.), Research Methods in Forensic Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hartwig, M., & Bond Jr., C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.
Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2015). Exploring the nature and origin of beliefs about deception: Implicit and explicit knowledge among lay people and presumed experts. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Verschuere (Eds). Deception detection: New challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 125–154). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts , & J. C. Kircher (Eds.) Credibility assessment: Scientific research and
applications (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Academic Press.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 213–227.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely vs. observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429–456.
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 1–61.
Hira, S., & Furumitsu, I. (2002). Polygraphic examinations in Japan: Application of the guilty knowledge test in forensic investigations. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 16–27.
Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 103–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 251–264). London: Academic.
Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–187.