HELLO AND WELCOME TO DECEPTION RESEARCH
This page is a result of a joint project funded by EPSRC and conducted by Cambridge University, UCL, Newcastle University and the University of Portsmouth. Here you will find info on researchers and literature on deception. Simply follow the links above.
We are eager to hear from you if you wish to contribute to this repository.
Drop us a line at: david.modic[@]cl.cam.ac.uk (as is usual, remove the square brackets).
|Toward a scientific, evidence-based understanding of interrogation: A principled approach||
Notes: iIIRG second keynote. Toward a scientific, evidence-based understanding of interrogation: A principled approach. There is an algorythmic structure of interviewing. Important initial step - overcome resistance, ellicit cooperation/compliance. You assess credibility (there are cues to deception). On the interviewer side - biases and stereotypes affect the interrogation.
Basically this discipline is based on a guild system. It is right now built on 1) previous experience, 2) shared knowledge and 3) formal norms.
|A cognitive approach to elicit verbal and non-verbal cues to deceit||
Notes: Nonverbal and verbal cues to deception are non-reliable (dePaulo et al., 2003). Meta analysis of deception cues - Bond and dePaulo, 2006. Anxiety based techniques - liars are more nervous than true tellers (no basis in research for this!). If the stakes are higher the cues will appear (Eckmann). Ask questions that are more difficult for liars than truth tellers (Vrij says has never claimed that).
--------Imposing cognitive load - liars are depleted already because lying requires resources already.
1. Reverse order technique.
|Guilty Adjustment Response trends on the SVT||
Notes: SVT - Symptom Validity Test (used to measure whether individuals are underperforming in a certain situation - usable for example in crime amnesia cases). The SVT is 29 ITEMS - 2 outcome questions (one is "true" the other "false" - for example what color was the bag that was snatched? a) Black b) Beige) The interesting anlytical twist is that we measure how many of the answers were inaccurate. For example in validation of SVT, the bank robber who claimed not remember robbing a bank answered 7 questions correctly out 29.
|Breaking out of slightly-better-than-chance effect||
Notes: meta analysis of interviews - 54% accuracy. Nothing matters (channel of communication, experts vs students, method, age, IQ). Over many studies the data is reasonably normally distributed. bell curve ends are populated with studies with small samples where there was a lot of noise. It turns out that people are about as good at detecting deception as they are at predicting random future events (BEM scale - 53% accuracy). Levine (2007, 2009, 2012) articles (some are in this repository) - they tried to get the people to cheat (In questions I asked him how successful they were past the baseline and he said that they weren't).
|Investigative interviews with children, alleged victims of sexual abuse through the Internet||
Notes: Internet used as a conduit for disemination or for solicitation. Thematic analysis method used in interviews - categorisation of what was told. Out of 20, 8 denied sexual abuse although they had strong evidence to the contrary (medical evidence proving brutal rape). They uncovered 6 distinct categories (grooming etc) in interviews. The grooming process was the same in all 20 cases. Qualitative study, though. Stages: Approach, communication, escalate + sexual content, arrange a meeting.
1. Offenders isolate the child (are you on your own? Please ask your sister to leave the room, I am only interested in you).
2. Then build rapport,