Most people lie occasionally. Lies are often trivial and essentially irrelevant – like pretending to like a bad gift. But in other contexts, deception is more serious and can have detrimental effects on criminal justice. From a social perspective, this lie is better detected than ignored and tolerated.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect lies accurately. Lie detectors, like polygraphs, which work by measuring a subject’s level of anxiety while answering questions, are considered “theoretically weak” and of dubious reliability. This is because, as any traveler questioned by customs officials knows, it is possible to be anxious without being guilty.
We have developed a new approach to detect liars based on the technique of interviewing 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 being increasingly researched and developed. These approaches postulate that the mental and strategic processes adopted by truth tellers during interviews differ significantly from those of liars. Using specific techniques, these differences can be amplified and detected.
One such approach is the Asymmetric Information Management (AIM) technique. In essence, it is designed to provide suspects with a clear means of demonstrating their innocence or guilt to investigators by providing detailed information. Small details are the lifeblood of forensic investigations and can provide investigators with facts to verify and witnesses to question. It is important to note that longer, more detailed statements often contain more clues to a mistake than short statements.
Essentially, the AIM method involves informing suspects of these facts. Specifically, interviewers make it clear to interviewees that if they provide longer and more detailed statements about the event of interest, the investigator will be better able to detect whether they are telling the truth or lying. For truth tellers, this is good news. For liars, this is less good news.
In fact, research shows that when suspects receive these instructions, they behave differently, depending on whether they are telling the truth or not. Truth tellers seek to demonstrate their innocence and generally provide more detailed information in response to such instructions.
In contrast, liars want to hide their guilt. This means that they are more likely to retain information strategically in response to AIM instructions. Your (totally correct) assumption here is that providing more information will make it easier for the investigator to detect your lie; instead, they provide less information.
This asymmetry in the responses of liars and truth tellers – from which the AIM technique derives its name – suggests two conclusions. When using AIM instructions, if the investigator is introduced to a potential suspect who is providing a lot of detailed information, it is likely that he is telling the truth. In contrast, if the potential suspect is lying, the investigator will usually receive shorter testimonials.
The experiment
But how effective is this approach? Preliminary research on the AIM technique has been promising. For our study, we recruited 104 people who were sent on one of two secret missions to different locations at a university to retrieve and / or deposit intelligence material.
All respondents were informed that there was a data breach in their absence. They were therefore suspicious and faced an interview with an independent analyst. Half were instructed to tell the truth about their mission to convince the interviewer of their innocence. The other half was told that they could not disclose any information about their mission and that they should invent a cover story about where they were at the time and place of the violation, to convince the analyst of his innocence.
Then, they were 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 identify the liars. In fact, lie detection accuracy rates have increased from 48% (without AIM) to 81% – with truth counters 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. It can be difficult to recall information, and truth tellers often find it difficult to remember it.
Memory tools known as “mnemonics” may be able to improve this process. For example, if a robbery witness provided an initial statement and cannot remember additional information, investigators can use a “change of perspective” mnemonic – asking the witness to think about events from someone else’s perspective (” what would an official police see if they were there. ”) This can extract new information – previously unreported – from memory.
If that is the case, our new technique could become even more accurate in being able to detect verbal differences between truth tellers and liars.
In any case, our method is an ethical, non-accusatory and information-gathering approach to interviewing. AIM instructions are simple to understand, easy to implement, and look promising. Although initially tested for use in interviews with police suspects, these instructions can be implemented in a variety of environments, such as insurance claim environments.
This article by Cody Porter, senior professor of Psychology and Offensive Behavior, University of Portsmouth, has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Read below:
This mega-pack of 22 courses can make you a project management superstar