an ecological approach to deception detection j. pete blair, ph.d., department of criminal justice,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection
J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University
Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department of Communication,
Michigan State University
![Page 2: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
A test of skill
![Page 3: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Some more
![Page 4: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
40+ Years of the Traditional Approach
• The primary theories are leakage based (Ekman, Zuckerman, Burgoon, DePaulo)
• Based on these theories, the primary concern is identifying leakage and people’s ability to detect it.
• The outcomes of this type of research have been:– Few behaviors reliably indicate deception, and those that do tend to
exhibit small effect sizes (DePaulo et al., 2003)
– People don’t know the cues to deception
– People are only slightly (4%) better than chance at detecting deception and accuracy clusters normally around the mean (Bond & DePaulo, 2006)
– There is little variance in judge ability, but enormous variance in sender credibility (Bond & DePaulo, 2008)
– Training has a small effect (4%) on accuracy (Frank & Feeley, 2003)
![Page 5: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
40+ Years of the Traditional Approach
• The results of the traditional approach are quite modest
• And surprising!
• Why?– Lack of realism (low stakes, sanctioned lies)?
– Myopic focus on leakage?
• In our opinion, there is a need for a new paradigm
![Page 6: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Looking for Exceptions
• Asch (1956) Line length studies
• Milgram (1969) Obedience to authority
• Park et al. (2002) How people really detect lies
• “Reid” based series of studies
• Hartwig et al. (2005 & 2006) – Strategic Use of Evidence
• Why are these different?
• We think that the answer is Context
![Page 7: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Context
• All communication occurs in a context
• It is difficult to communicate without knowledge of the context
• Most deception detection experiments are designed to strip context away because of a leakage focus
• Context could provide information which assists in deception detection
• We call these “Content in Context Cues”– Contradiction
– Normative
– Idiosyncratic
![Page 8: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Our Big “Content in Context” Study
• 6 Samples of Participants in 8 Runs
• 3 sets of videos
• 2 basic conditions (context/no context)– Context
• 176 unique judges who made 2422 judgments
• 75% accuracy (1% SE)
– No Context
• 237 unique judges who made 3132 judgments
• 57% accuracy (1% SE)
• Clearly context matters!
• Blair, J.P., Levine, T.R., & Shaw, A.S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442.
![Page 9: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Moving Toward Ecology
• Our thinking is strongly influenced by Brunswick and Gigerenzer
– A Darwinian understanding of how psychological processes develop
– Processes are adapted to environment
– Both the process and the environment must be considered (2 blades of the scissors)
– Procedure
• Identify process(es)
• Test environments to identify limits
• Modify environments to assist the functioning of process
• This is the direction that our research program is currently taking
![Page 10: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Processes
• Motive– Absent a motive for deception, deception judgments are not made
– Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 81–101.
• Demeanor– Tim has developed an 11 item demeanor scale
– It predicts up to 82% of the variance in judgments
– Still under review
![Page 11: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Processes
• Demeanor
![Page 12: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Processes
• Consistency– Coherence – consistency of a statement with itself or other’s statements
• People adhere to this, but it doesn’t work very well
• Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2000). Deception detection: Examining the consistency heuristic. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, J. F. Nijboer & J. M. Reintjes (Eds.), New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence II (pp. 309-321). Antwerpen: Intersentia.
• Stromwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A. (2003). Deception among pairs: "Let's say we had lunch and hope they will swallow it!". Psychology Crime & Law, 9, 109-124.
![Page 13: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Processes
• Consistency– Correspondence – consistency with external facts
• Appears to operate in a linear fashion
• As inconsistencies accumulate more deception judgments made
![Page 14: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Processes
• Consistency– Correspondence
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469-484.
• We also have a piece under review
![Page 15: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A Basic Process Model
![Page 16: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Environments
• We haven’t done much specific work in this area, but – Motive seems to be very general
– Demeanor as well
– Consistency (both coherence and correspondence) require extra information to utilize, but seem to be utilized when present
• Only motive and correspondence seem to generally enhance deception detection accuracy
• We are starting to work on how these processes operate in conjunction with each other
![Page 17: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Modifying Environments
• We consider the specific questioning utilized to be an environmental modification
• We call this “Question Effects”
• A question is effective when it causes a truth-teller to act like a truth-teller, a deceiver to act like a deceiver, or both
• Acting like a truth-teller or a liar is defined based upon the previously discussed processes
![Page 18: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Question Effects
• Correspondence Example – Hartiwig’s (2005 &6) SUE. If the suspects are questioned in a way that gives away what the interviewer knows, the suspect makes his or her statement consistent with the information. Deception detection accuracy is reduced.
• Coherence Example – Vrij’s et al.’s (2008) unexpected questions. Pairs of liars will practice their story and be more coherent than truth-tellers. Asking unexpected questions undoes this and makes coherence useful.
• Demeanor Example – Levine & Blair’s (under review) question effects. Changed question from “why should I believe you” to “what will your partner say?”
– Below chance accuracy with the first and above with the second
![Page 19: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Test 2
The Facts:The victim is a Female, Hispanic, and 23 years old.The item stolen is a Black, JanSport backpackNo weapon was used
![Page 20: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The other ones
Background information:The trivia test is extremely difficult.Most people who scored 3 or more probably cheated.
![Page 21: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Expertise
• A debate over expertise in detecting deception has gone on for some time
• One camp has tested large numbers of people using distinct sets of videos to find a few “experts” (who score 80% or better on a subset of trials)
• One camp has meta-analyzed the data and come to the conclusion that the is no evidence for expertise
• Taking an ecological approach, we argue that there ought to be expertise, but that this expertise is situated within a particular environment
• We are seeing if we can develop “experts” (without training) this summer
![Page 22: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summary
• The dominant traditional approaches to deception detection research have produced modest results
• Adopting an ecological approach seems to provide a flexible way forward
• This approach considers the process in the environment
• Three parts– Identification of processes
– Testing of processes in environments to identify limits
– Modification of environments to allow the processes to function effectively
![Page 23: An Ecological Approach to Deception Detection J. Pete Blair, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University Tim R. Levine, Ph.D., Department](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56649ea25503460f94ba6964/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Summary
• Processes– Motive
– Demeanor
– Coherence
– Correspondence
• Environments– These processes should be available in most investigative contexts
– They do not all function well in standard environments
• Modification of environments– Question effects have been shown to impact the functioning of the
processes in common environments
– These effects can be good or bad