Detecting Deceptive Intentions: Possibilities for Large-Scale Applications
Most deception detection research looks at the deception about past events (e.g., a crime). From an applied perspective, it is often more relevant to focus on the identification of those people who might have malicious intent regarding an event in the future (e.g., planning an attack). The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of possibilities for large-scale applications to detecting deceptive intentions. We outline a set of criteria that an applied system should meet from a practitioner’s perspective to evaluate deception theories, interviewing approaches, information elicitation methods, and verbal deception cues that may be of use for large-scale applications for prospective airport passenger screening. Our review indicates that (i) the cognition-based deception theory, (ii) the information-gathering interviewing approach, (iii) the unanticipated questions method and the model statement technique, and (iv) verbal cues, especially the verifiability of details and stylometric cues, are most the promising. We conclude this chapter with an illustration of how this combination of elements can be operationalized.
KeywordsDeception detection Malicious intent Passenger screening Applied deception research
- Airports Council International. (2016). Year to date passenger traffic, December 2015. Retrieved from http://www.aci.aero/Data-Centre/Monthly-Traffic-Data/Passenger-Summary/Year-to-date.
- Bachenko, J., Fitzpatrick, E., & Schonwetter, M. (2008). Verification and implementation of language-based deception indicators in civil and criminal narratives. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics—Volume 1 (pp. 41–48). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1599087.
- Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2014). Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN: Using an example statement with truth tellers and liars. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Booth, R. (2013). Fake bomb detector conman jailed for 10 years. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/02/fake-bomb-detector-conman-jailed.
- Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
- Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An Empirical Evaluation of Intelligence-gathering Interrogation Techniques from the United States Army Field Manual: Intelligence-gathering interrogation techniques. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 867–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Feng, V. W., & Hirst, G. (2013). Detecting deceptive opinions with profile compatibility. In IJCNLP (pp. 338–346). Retrieved from ftp://22.214.171.124/dist/gh/Feng+Hirst-IJCNLP-2013.pdf.
- Fenn, E., McGuire, M., Langben, S., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2015). A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553365/.
- Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
- Fitzpatrick, E., Bachenko, J., & Fornaciari, T. (2015). Automatic detection of verbal deception (Vol. 8). Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00656ED1V01Y201507HLT029.
- Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2014). Identifying fake Amazon reviews as learning from crowds. Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/14591.
- Gallini, B. (2010). Police “science” in the interrogation room: Seventy years of pseudo-psychological interrogation methods to obtain inadmissible confessions. Hastings Law Journal, 61, 529–577. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/lawpub/29/.
- Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Information gathering in law enforcement and intelligence settings: Advancing theory and practice: Effective human intelligence gathering techniques. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 815–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. (2016). Interrogation best practices report. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-august-2016.pdf/view.
- Honts, C., & Hartwig, M. (2014). Credibility assessment at portals. In D. C. Raskin, C. Honts, & J. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 37–62). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Inbau, F. E. (Ed.). (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
- Kleinberg, B., Nahari, G., & Verschuere, B. (2016). Using the verifiability of details as a test of deception: A conceptual framework for the automation of the verifiability approach. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT (pp. 18–25). Retrieved from http://www.anthology.aclweb.org/W/W16/W16-0803.pdf.
- Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Carpenter, C. J. (2018). A critical look at meta-analytic evidence for the cognitive approach to lie detection: A re-examination of Vrij, Fisher, and Blank (2017). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luyckx, K., & Daelemans, W. (2008). Authorship attribution and verification with many authors and limited data. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 513–520). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., et al. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mihalcea, R., & Strapparava, C. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers (pp. 309–312). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1667679.
- Morris, S., Jones, M., & Booth, R. (2013). The “magic” bomb detector that endangered lives all over the world. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/23/magic-bomb-detector-lives-risk.
- Nahari, G., Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., & Vernham, Z. (2014). Did somebody see it? Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claim interviews: The verifiability approach in insurance interviews. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(3), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures Facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies: The verifiability approach and countermeasures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Negative deceptive opinion spam. In HLT-NAACL (pp. 497–501). Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/website/old_anthology/N/N13/N13-1.pdf#page=535.
- Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies—Volume 1 (pp. 309–319). Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2002512.
- Panasiti, M. S., Cardone, D., Pavone, E. F., Mancini, A., Merla, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2016). Thermal signatures of voluntary deception in ecological conditions. Scientific Reports, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35174.
- Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/31333.
- Perry, M., & Gilbey, A. (2011). The screening of passengers by observation techniques programme. Aviation Security International, 17(3), 12.Google Scholar
- Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Effects of age and gender on blogging. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs (Vol. 6, pp. 199–205).Google Scholar
- Schubert, S. (2006). A look tells all. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-look-tells-all.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
- Wilgoren, J., & Wong, E. (2001). After the attacks: United flight 93; On doomed flight, passengers vowed to perish fighting. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-attacks-united-flight-93-doomed-flight-passengers-vowed-perish-fighting.html.
- Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59.Google Scholar