[ad_1]
Most people lie on occasion. Lies are often trivial and essentially unimportant – like pretending to like a tasteless gift. But in other contexts, deception is more serious and can have detrimental effects on criminal justice. From a societal point of view, such a lie is better detected than ignored and tolerated.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect lies precisely. Lie detectors, such as polygraphs, which work by measuring a subject’s anxiety level while answering questions, are considered “theoretically weak” and of questionable reliability. Indeed, as any traveler questioned by customs officials knows, it is possible to be anxious without being guilty.
We have developed a new approach to spotting liars based on interview technique and psychological manipulation, with results recently published in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
Our technique is part of a new generation of cognitive lie detection methods that are increasingly researched and developed. These approaches postulate that the mental and strategic processes adopted by truth tellers in interviews differ considerably from those of liars. Using specific techniques, these differences can be amplified and detected.
One of these approaches is the asymmetric information management technique (AIM). Basically, it is designed to provide suspects with a clear way to demonstrate their innocence or guilt to investigators by providing detailed information. Small details are the cornerstone of forensic investigations and can provide investigators with facts to verify and witnesses to interview. Importantly, longer, more detailed statements generally contain more clues to deception than short statements.
Essentially, the AIM method is to inform suspects of these facts. Specifically, investigators make it clear to interviewees that if they provide longer and more detailed statements about the event that interests them, then the investigator will be better able to detect whether they are telling the truth or lying. For those who are telling the truth, this is good news. For liars, this is less good news.
Indeed, research shows that when suspects receive these instructions, they behave differently depending on whether they are telling the truth or not. Truth tellers usually seek to prove their innocence and usually provide more detailed information in response to such instructions.
On the other hand, liars wish to hide their guilt. This means that they are more likely to strategically withhold information in response to AIM instructions. Their (perfectly correct) assumption here is that providing more information will make it easier for the investigator to detect their lie, so instead they provide less information.
This asymmetry in the responses of liars and truth tellers – for which the AIM technique takes its name – suggests two conclusions. When using AIM instructions, if the investigator is presented with a potential suspect who provides a lot of detailed information, he is likely to be telling the truth. On the other hand, if the potential suspect is lying, the investigator will usually be presented with shorter statements.
The experience
But how effective is this approach? Preliminary research on the AIM technique is promising. For our study, we recruited 104 people who were sent on one of two covert missions to different locations in a university to collect and / or drop off intelligence material.
All those interviewed were then informed that there had been a data breach in their absence. They were therefore suspects and faced an interview with an independent analyst. Half were told to tell the truth about their mission to convince the interviewer of their innocence. The other half were told that they could not divulge any information about their assignment and that they would have to offer coverage as to where they were at the time and place of the breach to convince the analyst of their mission. innocence.
They were then interviewed and the AIM technique was used in half of the cases. We found that when the AIM technique was used, it was easier for the interviewer to spot liars. In fact, lie detection accuracy rates have dropped from 48% (without AIM) to 81% – with truth tellers providing more information.
The research is also exploring methods to improve the AIM technique using clues that can help truth tellers provide even more information. Recalling information can be difficult, and people who are telling the truth often have trouble remembering it.
Memory tools known as “mnemonics” can improve this process. For example, if a witness to a robbery provided an initial statement and cannot recall additional information, investigators might use a mnemonic of “change of perspective” – asking the witness to reflect on the events of the point. of someone else’s view (“what would an officer have seen if they were there”). This can get new information – not previously reported – from memory.
If so, our new technique might become even more accurate at detecting verbal differences between truth-telling and liars.
Regardless, our method is an ethical, non-adversarial, information gathering approach for the interview. The AIM instructions are simple to understand, easy to implement, and look promising. Although initially tested for use in interviews with police suspects, these instructions could be implemented in a variety of contexts, such as insurance claim situations.
This article by Cody Porter, Senior Teaching Fellow in Psychology and Delinquent Behavior, University of Portsmouth, is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Read more:
This 22-course mega-package can make you a project management superstar
[ad_2]
Source link