Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues
The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well‐validated “detecting deception” methods – i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) – when applied to the issue of bio‐thre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral sciences & the law 2014-05, Vol.32 (3), p.269-285 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 285 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 269 |
container_title | Behavioral sciences & the law |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Morgan III, Charles A. Rabinowitz, Yaron Leidy, Robert Coric, Vladimir |
description | The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well‐validated “detecting deception” methods – i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) – when applied to the issue of bio‐threat.The detecting deception accuracies of FCT and MCI were 81% and 75%, respectively. Although the aIAT mean response times in block 5 differed significantly between deceptive and truthful persons, the classification accuracy was low. FCT alone reduced the group of 64 persons to 11 and detected 50% of the liars; the false positive rate was 9%. MCI alone reduced the group of 64 to 24 and detected 92% of the liars; the false positive rate was 54%. When FCT was paired with MCI, 75% of liars were detected and the false positive rate was 13%.Forced choice testing and MCI show promise as methods for detecting deception related to bio‐threat under low‐base‐rate conditions. These methods took little time, enhanced the odds of detecting deceptive individuals and exhibited high positive likelihood ratios, suggesting that they have merit as screening tools. The aIAT required more time and was less accurate but may still serve as a useful screening tool. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bsl.2098 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1550984735</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1550984735</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4908-3a6f70200f80e013693ee3704a0754e1b52349c7574bb112ac456731ac74dc723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0U9v0zAYBnALgVjZkPgEyBIXLtle_4vjI-vW0qkCiW3aDctx3zCPNO5il9FvT6KVISEhcfLl50f28xDyhsExA-AndWqPOZjqGZkwMKYAbarnZAJaqEIYUR6QVyndAYCqlHlJDrhU0pSVnpCv500TvPM7Ghs6jes6dKH7Rhddxv5HwAd6hf62C_dbTDR09Awz-jyKM_S4ySF29Au2LuOK5khPQyzybY8u00VKw50j8qJxbcLX-_OQXM_Or6Yfi-Xn-WL6YVl4aaAqhCsbDRygqQCBidIIRKFBOtBKIqsVF9J4rbSsa8a481KVWjDntVx5zcUhef-Yu-nj-NZs1yF5bFvXYdwmy5Qa6pFDH_9BBZcV45IN9N1f9C5u-274yKiMUGXJ2Z9A38eUemzspg9r1-8sAzvOY4d57DjPQN_uA7f1GldP8PceAygewUNocffPIHt6udwH7n1IGX8-edd_t0M_WtmbT3N7c6ku5mIm7Ez8Av8npUg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1539356621</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Morgan III, Charles A. ; Rabinowitz, Yaron ; Leidy, Robert ; Coric, Vladimir</creator><creatorcontrib>Morgan III, Charles A. ; Rabinowitz, Yaron ; Leidy, Robert ; Coric, Vladimir</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well‐validated “detecting deception” methods – i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) – when applied to the issue of bio‐threat.The detecting deception accuracies of FCT and MCI were 81% and 75%, respectively. Although the aIAT mean response times in block 5 differed significantly between deceptive and truthful persons, the classification accuracy was low. FCT alone reduced the group of 64 persons to 11 and detected 50% of the liars; the false positive rate was 9%. MCI alone reduced the group of 64 to 24 and detected 92% of the liars; the false positive rate was 54%. When FCT was paired with MCI, 75% of liars were detected and the false positive rate was 13%.Forced choice testing and MCI show promise as methods for detecting deception related to bio‐threat under low‐base‐rate conditions. These methods took little time, enhanced the odds of detecting deceptive individuals and exhibited high positive likelihood ratios, suggesting that they have merit as screening tools. The aIAT required more time and was less accurate but may still serve as a useful screening tool. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-3936</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0798</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2098</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24549687</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BSLADR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Behavioral sciences ; Bioterrorism - psychology ; Choice Behavior ; Classification ; Deception ; Efficacy ; False positive results ; Female ; Humans ; Interviewing ; Interviews as Topic - methods ; Lie Detection ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Qualitative Research ; Screening ; Threats ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Behavioral sciences & the law, 2014-05, Vol.32 (3), p.269-285</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. May-Jun 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4908-3a6f70200f80e013693ee3704a0754e1b52349c7574bb112ac456731ac74dc723</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4908-3a6f70200f80e013693ee3704a0754e1b52349c7574bb112ac456731ac74dc723</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbsl.2098$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbsl.2098$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,30999,31000,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24549687$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Morgan III, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabinowitz, Yaron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leidy, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coric, Vladimir</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues</title><title>Behavioral sciences & the law</title><addtitle>Behav. Sci. Law</addtitle><description>The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well‐validated “detecting deception” methods – i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) – when applied to the issue of bio‐threat.The detecting deception accuracies of FCT and MCI were 81% and 75%, respectively. Although the aIAT mean response times in block 5 differed significantly between deceptive and truthful persons, the classification accuracy was low. FCT alone reduced the group of 64 persons to 11 and detected 50% of the liars; the false positive rate was 9%. MCI alone reduced the group of 64 to 24 and detected 92% of the liars; the false positive rate was 54%. When FCT was paired with MCI, 75% of liars were detected and the false positive rate was 13%.Forced choice testing and MCI show promise as methods for detecting deception related to bio‐threat under low‐base‐rate conditions. These methods took little time, enhanced the odds of detecting deceptive individuals and exhibited high positive likelihood ratios, suggesting that they have merit as screening tools. The aIAT required more time and was less accurate but may still serve as a useful screening tool. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Behavioral sciences</subject><subject>Bioterrorism - psychology</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Deception</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>False positive results</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviewing</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Lie Detection</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Threats</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0735-3936</issn><issn>1099-0798</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0U9v0zAYBnALgVjZkPgEyBIXLtle_4vjI-vW0qkCiW3aDctx3zCPNO5il9FvT6KVISEhcfLl50f28xDyhsExA-AndWqPOZjqGZkwMKYAbarnZAJaqEIYUR6QVyndAYCqlHlJDrhU0pSVnpCv500TvPM7Ghs6jes6dKH7Rhddxv5HwAd6hf62C_dbTDR09Awz-jyKM_S4ySF29Au2LuOK5khPQyzybY8u00VKw50j8qJxbcLX-_OQXM_Or6Yfi-Xn-WL6YVl4aaAqhCsbDRygqQCBidIIRKFBOtBKIqsVF9J4rbSsa8a481KVWjDntVx5zcUhef-Yu-nj-NZs1yF5bFvXYdwmy5Qa6pFDH_9BBZcV45IN9N1f9C5u-274yKiMUGXJ2Z9A38eUemzspg9r1-8sAzvOY4d57DjPQN_uA7f1GldP8PceAygewUNocffPIHt6udwH7n1IGX8-edd_t0M_WtmbT3N7c6ku5mIm7Ez8Av8npUg</recordid><startdate>201405</startdate><enddate>201405</enddate><creator>Morgan III, Charles A.</creator><creator>Rabinowitz, Yaron</creator><creator>Leidy, Robert</creator><creator>Coric, Vladimir</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201405</creationdate><title>Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues</title><author>Morgan III, Charles A. ; Rabinowitz, Yaron ; Leidy, Robert ; Coric, Vladimir</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4908-3a6f70200f80e013693ee3704a0754e1b52349c7574bb112ac456731ac74dc723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Behavioral sciences</topic><topic>Bioterrorism - psychology</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Deception</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>False positive results</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviewing</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Lie Detection</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Threats</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Morgan III, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabinowitz, Yaron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leidy, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coric, Vladimir</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Behavioral sciences & the law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Morgan III, Charles A.</au><au>Rabinowitz, Yaron</au><au>Leidy, Robert</au><au>Coric, Vladimir</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral sciences & the law</jtitle><addtitle>Behav. Sci. Law</addtitle><date>2014-05</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>269</spage><epage>285</epage><pages>269-285</pages><issn>0735-3936</issn><eissn>1099-0798</eissn><coden>BSLADR</coden><abstract>The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well‐validated “detecting deception” methods – i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) – when applied to the issue of bio‐threat.The detecting deception accuracies of FCT and MCI were 81% and 75%, respectively. Although the aIAT mean response times in block 5 differed significantly between deceptive and truthful persons, the classification accuracy was low. FCT alone reduced the group of 64 persons to 11 and detected 50% of the liars; the false positive rate was 9%. MCI alone reduced the group of 64 to 24 and detected 92% of the liars; the false positive rate was 54%. When FCT was paired with MCI, 75% of liars were detected and the false positive rate was 13%.Forced choice testing and MCI show promise as methods for detecting deception related to bio‐threat under low‐base‐rate conditions. These methods took little time, enhanced the odds of detecting deceptive individuals and exhibited high positive likelihood ratios, suggesting that they have merit as screening tools. The aIAT required more time and was less accurate but may still serve as a useful screening tool. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>24549687</pmid><doi>10.1002/bsl.2098</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0735-3936 |
ispartof | Behavioral sciences & the law, 2014-05, Vol.32 (3), p.269-285 |
issn | 0735-3936 1099-0798 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1550984735 |
source | MEDLINE; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Accuracy Adolescent Adult Behavioral sciences Bioterrorism - psychology Choice Behavior Classification Deception Efficacy False positive results Female Humans Interviewing Interviews as Topic - methods Lie Detection Logistic Models Male Middle Aged Qualitative Research Screening Threats Young Adult |
title | Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T10%3A19%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20Combining%20Interview%20Techniques%20in%20Detecting%20Deception%20Related%20to%20Bio-threat%20Issues&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20sciences%20&%20the%20law&rft.au=Morgan%20III,%20Charles%20A.&rft.date=2014-05&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=269&rft.epage=285&rft.pages=269-285&rft.issn=0735-3936&rft.eissn=1099-0798&rft.coden=BSLADR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bsl.2098&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1550984735%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1539356621&rft_id=info:pmid/24549687&rfr_iscdi=true |