March 15, 2005

1
March 15, 2005 PSYC 430 - 001Forensic
Psychology IntroductionCredibility
Assessment Dorothee Griesel, Dipl.-Psych.Departme
nt of Psychology University of British
Columbia The slides will be on the Yuille lab
website http//www.psych.ubc.ca/7Ejyuille/cours
es.htm
2
Outline

• Introduction and Definitions
• Detection of Non-Verbal Deception Cues
• Physiological Approach The Polygraph
• CQT
• GKT
• P300
• Research
• Admissibility in Court
• Behavioral Cues to Lying Behavior
• FACS
• Other behaviors
• Verbal Credibility Assessment
• SVA / CBCA
• Moderators of the Strength of Deception Cues

3
Intro

• Reasons for credibility assessments
• CJS, e.g., child (sexual) abuse allegations
• Mental health Suicide assessment
• I/O Test of employees loyalty
• National security, e.g., immigration,
  counterintelligence
• Three types of statements
• Correct memory (may contain some errors)
• Deceptive attempt
• Mistaken memory A historically wrong but
  subjectively true narrative, an erroneous account
  provided without intention to mislead

4
Intro cont

• Definition of a lie
• Target is deliberately misled.
• Target is not notified about the liars
  intention.
• Forms of lies
• Concealment
• Falsifications
• Telling the truth falsely
• Telling a half truth
• Incorrect-inference dodge
• No behavior is diagnostic of lying. Deception
  detection techniques are based on the assumption
  that the cognitive and emotional correlates of
  deception cause certain behavioral changes.
  However, not even behavioral changes are
  diagnostic of lying!
• Lies betray themselves through
• Leakage
• Deception clues
• Hot spot significant change in facial
  expression, body posture, style or content of
  speech.

(see Ekman, 2001)
5
Intro cont
6
Psychophysiological Approach The Polygraph

• Measures skin conductance, heart rate, blood
  pressure, respiration

7
Polygraph cont
Types of Polygraph Tests

• Relevant Irrelevant Test (RIT)
• Irrelevant questions
• Relevant questions
• Problematic
• Control Questions Test (CQT)
• Relevant questions
• Control questions
• 3 repetitions
• Purpose
• To narrow down the number of suspects
• To lower costs of the investigation
• Problematic assumptions

8
Polygraph cont

• CQT accuracy research - 2 errors
• false positive (FP) rate of those who are truly
  innocent but diagnosed as guilty
• false negative (FN) rate of those who are truly
  guilty but diagnosed as innocent
• ? Sensitivity proportion of correctly
  identified guilty examinees among all guilty
  examinees
• ? Specificity proportion of non-informed
  participants among all non-informed participants

9
Polygraph cont

• CQT accuracy research studies
• Raskin (1988) Laboratory study
• 97 accuracy for guilty subjects, 93 for
  innocent
• Raskin (1992) Comparison of lab and field
  studies
• 7 FN in lab, 10 FN in field studies
• Patrick Iacono (1991) Cases of 5 years from
  federal police examiners in Vancouver
• Hit rates 55 for innocent, 98 for guilty
  subjects
• Fiedler et al (2002)
• The current CQT practice is simply not the kind
  of procedure that should be sold in the name of
  scientific psychology (p. 323).

10
Polygraph cont

• Directed Lie Test (DLT)
• Alternative to CQT
• Subjects instructed to answer no to the control
  questions. The control questions are the same for
  all participants.
• Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT)
• Key assumption Information about the episode is
  only known to the investigator and to people who
  participated in the episode.
• Multiple choice format
• Instruction to answer no to every alternative
• Conditions for proper use
• Applications

11
Polygraph cont

• GKT research
• Only 2 field studies (see MacLaren, 2001)
• Sensitivity 50
• Specificity 98
• Laboratory findings (see Elaad, 1998)
• Range of correct identifications of innocent
  participants 79-100
• Range of correct identifications of guilty
  participants 61-100

12
Polygraph cont

• Countermeasure problem
• Honts et al. (1994) Physical and mental
  countermeasures
• Drugs

13
Polygraph cont

• Event-related brain potentials (ERP)
• GKT rationale
• Without relying on ANS responses
• The correct alternative will activate a cognitive
  processing revealed by the appearance of the
  P300.
• Oddball paradigm

14
Polygraph cont
15
Polygraph cont

• ? Control for FP by applying GKT procedure For
  innocent subject, crime-relevant stimuli are
  indistinguishable from irrelevant stimuli.
• ? Control for false negatives by applying
  control questions (the target stimuli).
• ? Countermeasures safe!
• Farwell Donchin (1991)
• Laboratory experiment ? No FPs, no FNs, 12.5
  insufficient information.
• Field study ? 100 accurate in cases where
  determination was made, again 12.5 indeterminate.

16
Polygraph cont

• Admissibility of the polygraph in court
• Daubert criteria
• Testability
• Known error rates
• Peer review and publications
• General acceptance
• Used in criminal investigations, but not
  permitted as evidence in criminal federal courts.
• Admissible in civil court if both sides agree.
• US Polygraph banned as employment selection tool
  except CIA, military, police forces.

17
Behavioral Approach

• Lies fail for 2 reasons
• Thoughts Cues mostly in the liars speech
  (latency, pauses)
• Emotions Cues in the liars face (leakage,
  deception clues)
• Lying about feelings (e.g., conceal jealousness)
• Feelings about lying (e.g., fear of being caught,
  stress, guilt, duping delight)
• Again, no behavior(al change) is diagnostic of
  lying! ? Alternative explanations should be
  considered.
• Frequent errors (Ekman, 2001)
• Brokaw hazard
• Othello error
• Ekman demonstrated that observers from illiterate
  as well as literate cultures detect the same
  emotions in the same pictures.

18
Behavioral Approach cont

• Facial Action Coding System (FACS Ekman
  Friesen, 1978)
• Anatomically based
• Objective
• Observational
• Action units (AU)
• Emotional dictionary
• Reliability
• Validity
• Relevance for lie detection

19
Behavioral Approach cont

• Other behavioral indicators of lying (DePaulo
  et al., 2003)
• Less illustrators
• More adaptors
• ? Due to nervousness!
• Motivational impairment effect
• Under a high motivation to succeed at lying, some
  of these behaviors change into their opposite
  resulting in over-controlled movements.
• Idiosyncratic behaviors
• e.g., moderated by personality characteristics
• Knowledge necessary for adequate interpretations.
  
• Deception cues in speech
• Higher pitch, more hesitant, less fluent, short
  response, slow speech

20
Verbal Credibility Assessment

• Verbal deception cues arise from the same reasons
  as nonverbal lying indicators
• emotion
• content complexity
• attempted control
• Undeutsch Hypothesis
• Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) 3 components
• Interview
• Step Wise Interview Protocol (Yuille, 1990a)
• Cognitive Interview (Fisher Geiselman, 1992)

21
SVA cont

• Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA)

Recommended reading Vrij (2005) in Psychology,
Public Policy and Law
22
SVA cont

• Validity Checklist
• Evaluation of CBCA outcome, an attempt to
  consider alternative explanations!

23
SVA cont

• SVA reliability
• Inter-item consistency only r .15
• Interrater reliability
• Up to 100, rs gt .95
• Kappa analyses ? suggest the exclusion of 5 items
  (see Horowitz et al., 1997)
• SVA validity children
• Yuille (1988) A lab study
• Elementary school children tell a true and a
  false story. Blind assessors rated their
  statements according to CBCA.
• Supporting the Undeutsch hypothesis, over 90 of
  the true stories and almost 75 of the false
  stories could be correctly classified based on
  the presence of the three plus two other CBCA
  criteria.
• Truth bias

24
SVA cont

• Esplin, Boychuk, Raskin (1988) first field
  study
• Several techniques to establish ground truth
  applied
• 20 confirmed vs. 20 unconfirmed cases of child
  sexual abuse
• Comparison of mean CBCA scores
• ? 15/19 CBCA criteria significantly more present
  in confirmed cases
• ? 7 CBCA criteria in each confirmed case
• 100 accuracy in classifying doubtful and truthful
  statements
• ? CBCA seems to work with adult witnesses as
  well.
• ? CBCA is difficult with crime suspects.

25
SVA cont

• Unresolved issues of CBCA
• Coaching similar to countermeasure problem
• Inductivistic approach (searching for signs of
  truthfulness rather than searching for deception)
• Absence of decision rules
• Yuille (1990b) recommended presence of the first
  5 CBCA criteria plus any 2 other
• Insufficient training of experts
• Cultural issues, e.g., certain criteria were seen
  more often in white peoples true statements than
  in blacks.

26
SVA cont

• Admissibility in court
• SVA required in Germany for cases of CSA.
• Also used in the Netherlands and Sweden.
• Inconsistent use in North America
• Often accepted in civil but not in criminal
  courts.
• SVA has been admitted in Canadian courts,
  although it remains an issue.
• Honts (1994) Daubert criteria are fulfilled for
  SVA.
• Currently used to guide investigations and to
  gather information.
• Framework reflecting our knowledge of memory,
  deception, interviewing techniques, and cognitive
  abilities of adult and child victims of crime.

27
Moderators of the Strength of Deception Cues

• Being a professional does not matter much in most
  cases.
• Poor cue utilization
• Confidence does not equal accuracy.
• Repeated interrogations raise confidence.
• Observing vs. interrogating
• Training should include outcome feedback.
• Left hemisphere damage has positive influence on
  lie detection abilities.
• Gender / Attractiveness The opposite genders
  lies are better detected.
• Knowing the liar does not necessarily help.
• Psychopaths do not perform better on the
  polygraph.

28
References

• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E.,
  Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper, H.
  (2003). Cues to Deception. Psycholgical Bulletin,
  129(1), 74-118.Ekman, P. (2001). Telling lies.
  New York W.W.Norton Company.
• Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action
  Coding System. Palo Alto, CAq Consulting
  Psychologists Press.
• Elaad, E. (1998). The challenge of the concealed
  knowledge polygraph test. Expert Evidence, 6,
  161-187.
• Farwell, L. A., Donchin, E. (1991). The truth
  will come out Interrogative polygraphy ("lie
  detection") with event-related brain potentials.
  Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531-547.
• Fiedler, K., Schmidt, J., Stahl, T. (2002).
  What is the current truth about polygraph lie
  detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
  24(4), 313-324
• Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E. (1992).
  Memory-enhancing techniques for inverstigative
  interviewing The Cognitive Interview.
  Springfield, IL Charles C Thomas.
• Honts, C. R. (1994). Assessing children's
  credibility Scientific and legal issues in 1994.
  North Dakota Law Review, 70, 879-903.
• Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C.
  (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures
  reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal
  of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 252-259.
• MacLaren , V. V. (2001). A quantitative review of
  the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied
  Psychology, 86(4), 674-683.
• Patrick, C. J., Iacono, W. G. (1991). Validity
  of the control question polygraph test the
  problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied
  Psychology, 76(2), 229-238.
• Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Horowitz, S. W.,
  Honts, C. R. (1988). Recent laboratory and field
  research on polygraph techniques. In J. C. Yuille
  (Ed.), Credibility assessment. Dordrecht,
  Netherlands Kluver Academic Publishers.
• Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit The
  psychology of lying and the implications for
  professional practice. Chichester Wiley.
• Yuille, J. C. (1988). The systematic assessment
  of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology,
  29(3), 247-262.
• Yuille, J. C. (1990a). Adult "step wise" assault
  interview protocol. Unpublished Manuscript.
  Vancouver, University of British Columbia.
• Yuille, J. C. (1990b). Use of the criteria-based
  content analysis, Unpublished manuscript.
  University of British Columbia. Vancouver.

29
Volunteer Information

• To volunteer in Memory for Mayhem (offender
  memories) or the prostitute project (memory and
  PTSD) please contact one of the RAs in the Yuille
  lab
• Laura laura3_at_interchange.ubc.ca
• Susan daflos_at_interchange.ubc.ca
• Ana gimgai_at_hotmail.com
• Miguel tejada_at_interchange.ubc.ca
• Krista krista_rae81_at_hotmail.com
• Phone [phone]