What science can teach us about “Enhanced Interrogation”

No abstract available

“You can't kid a kidder”: association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task

Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, has long been proposed to confer an evolutionary advantage. Deception detection has been studied extensively, and the finding that typical individuals fare little better than chance in detecting deception is one of the more robust in the behavioral sciences. Surprisingly, little research has examined individual differences in lie production ability. As a consequence, as far as we are aware, no previous study has investigated whether there exists an association between the ability to lie successfully and the ability to detect lies. Furthermore, only a minority of studies have examined deception as it naturally occurs; in a social, interactive setting. The present study, therefore, explored the relationship between these two facets of deceptive behavior by employing a novel competitive interactive deception task (DeceIT). For the first time, signal detection theory (SDT) was used to measure performance in both the detection and production of deception. A significant relationship was found between the deception-related abilities; those who could accurately detect a lie were able to produce statements that others found difficult to classify as deceptive or truthful. Furthermore, neither ability was related to measures of intelligence or emotional ability. We, therefore, suggest the existence of an underlying deception-general ability that varies across individuals

Finding a needle in a haystack: toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening

Current aviation security systems identify behavioral indicators of deception to assess risks to flights, but they lack a strong psychological basis or empirical validation. We present a new method that tests the veracity of passenger accounts. In an in vivo double-blind randomized-control trial conducted in international airports, security agents detected 66% of deceptive passengers using the veracity test method compared with less than 5% using behavioral indicator recognition. As well as revealing advantages of veracity testing over behavioral indicator identification, the study provides the highest levels to date of deception detection in a realistic setting where the known base rate of deceptive individuals is low

What's on your mind? Recent advances in memory detection using the concealed information test

Lie detectors can be applied in a wide variety of settings. But this advantage comes with a considerable cost: False positives. The applicability of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) is More limited, yet when it can be applied, the risk of false accusations can be set a priori at a very low level. The CIT assesses the recognition of; critical information that is known only by the examiners and the culprit, for example, the face a an accomplice. Large effects are Obtained with the CIT, whether combined with peripheral, brain, or Motor responses. We see three important challenges for the CIT. First, the false negative rate Of the CIT can be substantial, particularly under :realistic circumstantes. A possible solution Seems to restrict the CIT to highly Salient details. Second, there exist effective faking strategies. Future research will tell whether faking can be detected or even prevented (e.g., Using Overt measures). Third, recognition of critical crime detail's does not necessarily result from criminal activity. It is therefore important to properly embed the CIT in the investigative process, While taking care when drawing conclusions from the test outcome (recognition, not guilt)

The truth-telling motor cortex: Response competition in M1 discloses deceptive behaviour

Neural circuits associated with response conflict are active during deception. Here we use transcranial magnetic stimulation to examine for the first time whether competing responses in primary motor cortex can be used to detect lies. Participants used their little finger or thumb to respond either truthfully or deceitfully regarding facial familiarity. Motor-evoked-potentials (MEPs) from muscles associated with both digits tracked the development of each motor plan. When preparing to deceive, the MEP of the non-responding digit (i.e. the plan corresponding to the truth) exceeds the MEP of the responding digit (i.e. the lie), whereas a mirror-reversed pattern occurs when telling the truth. This give away response conflict interacts with the time of stimulation during a speeded reaction period. Lies can even activate digit-specific cortical representations when only verbal responses are made. Our findings support neurobiological models which blend cognitive decision-making with motor programming, and suggest a novel index for discriminating between honest and intentionally false facial recognition

Pinocchio's Pupil: Using Eyetracking and Pupil Dilation to Understand Truth Telling and Deception in Sender-Receiver Games

We report experiments on sender-receiver games with an incentive for senders to exaggerate. Subjects "overcommunicate" -- messages are more informative of the true state than they should be, in equilibrium. Eyetracking shows that senders look at payoffs in a way that is consistent with a level-k model. A combination of sender messages and lookup patterns predicts the true state about twice as often as predicted by equilibrium. Using these measures to infer the state would enable receiver subjects to hypothetically earn 16-21 percent more than they actually do, an economic value of 60 percent of the maximum increment

Facial expression of pain: an evolutionary account.

This paper proposes that human expression of pain in the presence or absence of caregivers, and the detection of pain by observers, arises from evolved propensities. The function of pain is to demand attention and prioritise escape, recovery, and healing; where others can help achieve these goals, effective communication of pain is required. Evidence is reviewed of a distinct and specific facial expression of pain from infancy to old age, consistent across stimuli, and recognizable as pain by observers. Voluntary control over amplitude is incomplete, and observers can better detect pain that the individual attempts to suppress rather than amplify or simulate. In many clinical and experimental settings, the facial expression of pain is incorporated with verbal and nonverbal vocal activity, posture, and movement in an overall category of pain behaviour. This is assumed by clinicians to be under operant control of social contingencies such as sympathy, caregiving, and practical help; thus, strong facial expression is presumed to constitute and attempt to manipulate these contingencies by amplification of the normal expression. Operant formulations support skepticism about the presence or extent of pain, judgments of malingering, and sometimes the withholding of caregiving and help. To the extent that pain expression is influenced by environmental contingencies, however, "amplification" could equally plausibly constitute the release of suppression according to evolved contingent propensities that guide behaviour. Pain has been largely neglected in the evolutionary literature and the literature on expression of emotion, but an evolutionary account can generate improved assessment of pain and reactions to it