Most people lie now and then. The lies are often insignificant and essentially insignificant – like pretending to like a tasteless gift. But in other contexts, deception is more serious and can have criminal consequences. From a societal perspective, such lies are better detected than ignored and tolerated.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect lies accurately. Lie detectors, such as polygraphs, who work by measuring the degree of anxiety in a subject while answering questions, are considered “theoretically weak” and of dubious reliability. This is because, as any traveler interviewed by customs officials knows, it is possible to be anxious without being guilty.
We have developed a new approach to detecting liars based on interview techniques 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-based lie detection methods that are increasingly being researched and developed. These approaches claim that the spiritual and strategic processes used by truth-tellers during interviews differ significantly from those of liars. By using specific techniques, these differences can be reinforced and detected.
One such approach is the Asymmetric Information Management (AIM) technique. At its core, it is designed to provide suspects with a clear way to prove their innocence or guilt to investigators by providing detailed information. Small details are the lifeblood of forensic investigations and can provide investigators with facts and witnesses who can be questioned. It is important that longer, more detailed statements usually contain more clues to deception than short statements.
In essence, the AIM method involves informing suspects about these facts. In particular, interviewers make it clear to the interviewers that if the longer, more detailed statements about the event are of interest, the investigator will be better able to determine whether they are telling the truth or lying. For truth-tellers, this is good news. For liars, this is less good news.
Research shows that when suspects receive these instructions, they act differently depending on whether they are telling the truth or not. Truth-tellers usually try to demonstrate their innocence and usually give more detailed information in response to such instructions.
In contrast, liars want to hide their guilt. This means that they are more likely to withhold information strategically in response to the AIM instructions. Their (completely correct) assumption here is that providing more information will make it easier for the investigator to detect their lie, and rather provide less information.
This asymmetry in reactions from liars and truth-tellers – from which the AIM technique derives its name – points to two conclusions. If the potential suspect is presented to the investigator who provides very detailed information, he is likely to tell the truth if the AIM instructions are used. On the other hand, if the potential suspect is lying, the investigator will usually be presented with shorter statements.
The experiment
But how effective is this approach? Preliminary research on the AIM technique was promising. For our study, we recruited 104 people who were sent on one of the two secret missions to different places in a university to gather and / or deposit intelligence materials.
All interviewers were then told that there was a data breach in their absence. They were therefore a suspect and had 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 disclose any information about their mission, and that they had to make a cover story about where they were at the time and place of the offense to convince the analyst of their innocence.
They were subsequently interviewed and in half of the cases the AIM technique was used. We found that when the AIM technique was used, it was easier for the interviewer to spot liars. In fact, the accuracy rates for false detection have increased from 48% (no AIM) to 81% – with truth tellers providing more information.
Research is also exploring methods to improve the AIM technique using guidelines that can support truth tellers to provide even more information. It can be difficult to recall information, and truth-tellers often struggle with their recollection.
Memory tools, known as ‘memory memory’, can potentially improve this process. For example, if a witness to a robbery made an initial statement and could not remember additional information, investigators could use a ‘change perspective’ memory, asking the witness to reflect on the events from someone’s point of view. otherwise officer saw if they were there ”). This can elicit new – previously unreported – information from memory.
If so, our new technique may become even more accurate at detecting verbal differences between truth-tellers and liars.
Either way, our method is an ethical, non-accusatory, and informative approach to interviewing. The AIM instructions are simple to understand, easy to implement and look promising. While initially tested for use in police suspects, such instructions can be implemented in various settings, such as in insurance claims.
This article by Cody Porter, Senior Fellow in Psychology and Offensive Behavior, University of Portsmouth, was published from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Read the following:
With this 22-course mega-package you can become a superstar for project management