Você está na página 1de 18

The Future of Deception Education

The Science of Revealing Hidden Interpersonal Communications


David A Camp PhD.
Blackburn College

Abstract
Historically based on pseudoscience, deception detection has become a legitimate scientific
field of study with recent research efforts seeking to disentangle such a complicated human
behavior being carefully designed, conducted and analyzed. Not only does the ability to identify
deceit have monetary concerns, in areas such as law enforcement, decisions may result in life
and death outcomes. The existing sources of deception instruction have and continue to adhere to
inappropriate content while also lacking the necessary pedagogical structure. While these sources
are resistant to change, the problems are all resolvable with the adoption of this area of study into
accredited institutions of higher education as part of the undergraduate curriculum. One pilot
course already successfully demonstrates the academic fit as well as a very positive student
response.

Introduction
Although an elusive goal, the ability to consistently and correctly identify deception has
been sought throughout history and the methods thought successful have been passed down
through literature and cultural tradition.
Unfortunately the methods passed down are based in myth, anecdote and unverified as well
as flawed logic. None are particularly successful. Even in the 20th century when a façade of
science was applied, the same underlying pseudoscientific rationale and associated methods are
still applied. Regardless, the quest and need for a valid and reliable approach to determining lies
and honesty is needed as much now as ever, if not more.
This is obvious when looking at the budgetary funding from governmental agencies and the
allocated training budgets of businesses. For instance Homeland Security’s 2013 budget provides
millions of dollars for programs that include research into deception oriented behavioral
assessment (DHS 2013 Budget). Many federal, state and local agencies as well as businesses also
appropriate significant funding for deception training programs.
With governments, the need for such knowledge is clear, National Security among other
applications. But why are businesses interested? The retail industry loses over $100 billion a year
to various forms of deceit. For example businesses report losing $25,000 each time they are
deceived into hiring and then having to replace the wrong person. Even though 25% report hiring
losses exceeding $50,000 per faulty decision, it pales in comparison to the yearly losses of $1
trillion by U.S. corporations as a whole (Harris Survey, 12/2012).
While these financial losses are quite concerning, the stakes are much higher when
unidentified deception leads to injury or death. This is the likely explanation for why criminal
justice professionals being the main consumers of the existing deception related workshops.
This is especially important in that most of the existing programs were not only tailored to
law enforcement officers (LEOs) they have often been taught by them. As a result the
characteristics of the LEO profession (i.e. specific needs, subcultural details, education and
training programs, etc.) will be used to illustrate deception related information.
Although people tend to think of lie detection as the reliance on technology to identify
deception or the ability to recognize some specific indicator that identifies when a person is
being untruthful, deception experts generally consider the best approach for identifying deceit is
to look for discrepancies between a person’s purposeful communications, their behaviors and
how they manage (or fail to manage) their other forms of communication. This approach is not
only useful in identifying deceptive information but also recognizing indications of other
undisclosed or hidden information which may be is some way noteworthy.
While the pure science of lie detection remains somewhat nebulous, many of the recent
approaches extract conclusions of deceit based on how people interact and communicate. The
process is referred to here as ‘Deceptive Behavior Analysis and Management’ or DBAM.
Because the methods employed within DBAM consider all forms of communication based
behaviors, the focus of DBAM is applicable regardless of socio-environmental context (criminal,
personal, business, human resource, social work, etc.).

Current DBAM Education: Sources and Problems


Every existing deception identification approach (technological and behavioral) and the
associated training possess inherent flaws in content and/or information transmission. These
flaws inhibit accuracy and usability. To overcome these limitations the specific problems must
be identified and reasonable solutions determined.
Many proponents of mechanical and electronic devices used in lie detection (i.e. polygraphs,
computer voice stress analysis, fMRI’s, etc.) claim they are legitimate as ‘lie detectors’ often
citing accuracies and test results. However, other issues aside, these devices require conditions
for application that are rarely available in highly variable field conditions where reliable
conclusions are most needed. Because of this particular issue and that these technological
approaches have their own educational training and support they will not be discussed further.
Whether using physiological or behavioral indicators, deception identification has always
relied on the opinion of the interviewer. That opinion is often based on specific indicators of
deceit obtained from interview training programs which claim to be based on scientific research.
This is especially important since the use of flawed indicators may produce flawed conclusions
leading to problems such as false confessions.
Because interrogations methods often rely on a conclusion that deception is indicated, the
dominant interrogation methods also include their approach to deception identification.
However, the National Defense Intelligence College’s extensive evaluation of these programs
concluded that, “virtually none (nor their underlying assumptions) are based on valid research”
(Borum, 2005; NDIC, 2006:35).
When these methods offer supportive research findings, close scrutiny of that research
reveals the methods used were inappropriate in objectivity, design, and analysis. Similarly when
their offered theoretical underpinnings are considered, they tend to rely on pseudoscientific
illusions of scientific methodology.
Although the issue of lab versus field conditions is generally a valid point and some
research has found above average abilities in field conditions for some test subjects, it is
impossible to identify what exactly what criteria the interviewer was using in their decision
process.
It is important to understand that labs can identify ‘proof of concept’ for direct causal
indicators while field conditions simply cannot. Thus the lab may be able to identify variable to
offer ‘proof of concept’ in the research effort that may refined with additional research. With the
field conditions containing an unknown number of variables and uncontrolled situational and
environmental characteristics, the possibility remains that the variables used in the decision
process may be misidentified due to unknown intervening variables.
Presently, training in non-technological lie detection includes course work in professional
academies, formal and informal subcultural transmission/socialization and short term continuing
education programs such as seminars and workshops. Although they generally re-enforce one
another, each possesses serious flaws of content and educational design which diminishes the
potential of those seeking a true set of knowledge and skills in the effort to detect deception.

Continuing Education Seminars and Workshops


Continuing education seminars, workshops and training programs make up the dominant
form of DBAM education transmittal. These programs are typically short term courses lasting
from several hours up to a maximum of 5 days in length. At present these are the primary
sources for law enforcement officers.
While continuing education is an excellent source of knowledge in many areas, those
offering deception related training possess flaws that significantly inhibit learning and limit
potential effectiveness.
Seminar training programs have been rapidly expanding in number due to a lack of control
over content quality, the absence of alternative educational sources, the potential for high
incomes and the ease with which an individual can claim expertise. There have been numerous
reports of problems when applying the training from these pseudoscientific programs including
false positives, coerced and false confessions, and interviewer bias to name a few.
This is concerning because several studies found those receiving deception related seminar
training were actually less effective in deception identification than those receiving no training at
all (Buller, Strezyzewski, and Hunsacker: 1991; Kassin and Fong: 1999; Vrij and Mann: 2001a;
Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991; Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Frank, 1999; George et al 2003; Kohnkan,
1987; Vrij and Graham, 1997; Vrij and Mann 2001b). While this is serious, the subcultural
support these programs receive makes these flawed programs even more dangerous.
Regardless, the possibility of learning to read people and identify deception is so highly
valued individuals and organizations invest time and significant amounts of money.

The Problems
Flawed Content
Although the purpose of a seminar is to provide quality information, providing information
that lacks objective research support as is common in deception related training programs, results
in the spreading of misinformation and the misapplication of associated techniques (Borum,
2006; Vrij, et al. 2006).
This is especially concerning since most deception identification programs derive much of
their content from invalid and unverified sources (i.e. pseudo-science, poor research, folk tales,
innuendo, myth, anecdotes and personal biases).
Probably the most common issue is the overgeneralized presumption of a link between
behavior, demeanor and deception (Akehurst et 1996; Stromwall and Granhag, 2003; Vrij and
Semin, 1996). Sadly the bulk of deception indicators taught by these programs is based on these
exaggerated presumptions.
Although stress does often occur with deceit, it is both invalid and unreliable as an
indicator since there are many other causes of stress. Thus if stress is indicated, the evaluator
must make an interpretative judgment call as to whether deception is the cause.
While the ‘stress equals deception’ paradigm has some relevance, stress approaches, even
with advanced instrumentation and experienced operators, have an unacceptable rate of error.
Although the average person has a 47% error rate (Bond and DePaulo, 2004), even the better
error rate of 30.5% from existing deception identification approaches is unacceptable when
making important decisions (Ben-Shakhar and Furedy, 1990).
Whether the methods have a working theoretical foundation or not they must still withstand
the scrutiny of objective verification before receiving a stamp of validity. Otherwise the validity
and reliability problems potentially exist due to the inclusion of invalid anecdotes, content
contamination, unidentified intervening variables and any number of potential biases.
Concerns of Subculturally Accepted Continuing Education:
Although many organizations provide deception identification training, the largest and
most influencing is offered by John Reid and Associates as an integral component of its highly
manipulative interrogation training known as the Reid Technique. This component is known as
the Reid ‘Behavioral Analysis Interview’ or BAI and teaches behavioral indicators the company
claims are indicators of deceit. If the interviewer concludes a subject is deceptive, that
conclusion is the sign for the interviewer to convert to their interrogation format.
The premise of the BAI is the existence of a valid link between indicators of stress,
demeanor and deception. This however, lacks a sound theoretical or objective research basis and
if coupled with a response bias can and has produced conclusions of a false positive (deception
thought to exist where it does not) which in turn led to the interrogation process (Akehurst et.al.,
1996; Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991; Frank and Feeley, 2003; Köhnken, 1987; Mann and Bull,
2004; Stromwall and Granhag, 2003; Vrij and Graham, 1997; Vrij and Mann: 2001a; Vrij and
Mann 2001b; Vrij and Semin, 1996; Vrij, et.al., 2006).
Further investigations (Granhag and Stromwell, 2004; Kassin, et.al. 2010) found the BAI
When combined with an officer’s overconfidence in their abilities may place an innocent person
in a position where a false confession (such as part of a plea bargain) will be perceived by an
innocent suspect as their best option .
This is a particular problem because the Reid company has received broad acceptance by
the LEO subculture even though the deception information taught by the BAI has been found
outdated, insufficient and lacking validity (Bradford and Pynes, 1999; Wall and Culloo, 1973;
National Defense Intelligence College, 2006).
Unfortunately BAI training has become embedded within the LEO subculture and its widely
shared misinformation is continually propagated throughout the LEO subculture. Efforts to alter
this view have met with significant resistance and any contrary evidence is similarly rejected.
Not surprisingly, several European countries have limited the use of the Reid interrogation
technique (Vrij, 1998).
Incorrect Educational Format
Seminars promote the belief that those attending short (1 to 5 day) seminar programs can
absorb and retain the presented information. While with some topics this may be a valid
assumption, it is an incorrect conclusion with respect to DBAM content material.
Modern research has determined effective deception skill requires the application of
complex and intricate information. This is likely why the centuries of effort have failed to
produce a successful method.
Many educational specialists have found the amount of time allocated to detailed and
involved information greatly influences content retention. Clark and Linn (2003) found a 12
week curriculum focused on a single complex topic achieved an average of 80% comprehension
while the overall comprehension from a 6 week program was only 40%. When the content
required connecting with other core concepts, comprehension dropped to a mere 27% (George,
et. al. 2003). As the instructional time dedicated to such involved areas of study is reduced there
is a strong and significant reduction in comprehension and retention. In short, existing deception
detection training programs fail to follow principles of effective training” (Docan-Morgan,
2007b). When responding to a online survey, 100% of responding deception experts agreed
significant improvements in effectiveness require much more time and practice than what is
available in these short seminar programs (Camp, 2011).
To gain significant knowledge via seminars, it would be necessary to cobble together a
cohesive whole of information by attending many different seminars, each multiple times. With
fees averaging $500 per seminar, and seeking an 80% retention rate, the learner would have to
attend at least nine seminar sessions (a total of 28 working days) and invest some $4500 in
attendance costs (not counting lost work time) all to gain proficiency in a single approach. Even
then their disjointed character does not support or encourage effective merging of the offered
information (even if it were completely valid).

Those With Greatest Need Have the Least Opportunity


Once an academy graduate is hired and put on the street, any future training is the
graduate’s responsibility or that of their employer.
The newer officers must use most of their ongoing training opportunities to maintain
required certifications while officers of advanced rank and longevity have the opportunity and
financial support for attending programs such as interviewing, deception identification and
interpersonal skills.
Instead newer officers tend to rely on the advice of senior officers, many of whom base their
knowledge of deception on the flawed subculturally accepted information sources. The newer
officers that do obtain additional deception training also receive that same information. With that
as a concern, it is important to realize that, unlike the higher ranked detectives; the newer ‘street-
level’ officers are assigned duties that routinely incur the greatest risks.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics (2005), high levels of interpersonal contact for
positions such as street-level law enforcement and correctional officers are the basis for their
assessment as being a high risk career. Every time they pull over a driver, answer a location call
or casually interact with the general public, they are facing a potential threat.
In just the last decade, of the 536 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty 426
(80%) were street-level police officers with less than 10 years’ experience while performing
routine activities (UCR, 2007).
Graph 1
Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities*
(By General Assignment)

LEO's Killed 2007


110 (21%)
All Other's

426 (79%)
Street Officers

* Uniform Crime Reports 2007

A similar situation exists for officers assaulted in the line of duty; Well over 90% were
newer street-level police officers with most assaults occurring when responding to "disturbance
calls” (family quarrels and such). And such statistics indicate these less experienced officers
being on the street have the greatest need for such training. Yet Frank and Feeley (2003:59)
found fewer than 10% [of street officers] had received any additional training on detecting lies
and interpersonal skills.
If valid interpersonal knowledge (as in DBAM) were appropriately taught those most facing
the greatest risks could improve their occupational effectiveness and safety.

After Training Errors in Application


Following the reception of deception education, it is quite easy to bias conclusions without
realizing it. Although many forms of bias exists those most likely to influence conclusions of
deceit are described below:
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is a tendency to notice and favor information that confirms preconceived
conclusions (Plous, 1993). When an evaluator bases their initial conclusion of deception on
flawed information (such as reliance on an invalid indicator) additional behaviors that support
their conclusions are noted and contradicting indicators go unnoticed or ignored.
Response Bias
Response bias is the tendency of respondents (interviewees) to provide answers they feel
the questioner desires rather than what the respondent truly believes. This is even more of a
concerning when the interview includes improperly designed or biased questions.
Self-Serving Attributional Bias
Self-serving serving attributional bias refers to individuals assigning their successes to
personal factors and failures to situational factors (Campbell and Sedikides 1999). This
mechanism is most common when self-esteem is intimately tied to a career field whose validity
has been challenged.
Interpretation vs. Analysis
Many people assume anecdotal experiences are sources of valid information. While
information gleaned from personal anecdotal experience is often a good source of knowledge, it
is also a common source of biased and invalid assumptions.
Because anecdotal experiences are subjective, significant intervening variables may not be
recognized. If a flawed anecdotal conclusion is passed on to others as factual, their use and the
resulting inaccurate conclusions continue.
Analysis, on the other hand, evaluates information based on objectively validated
indicators and procedures. Although procedures of analysis often begin with anecdotal
interpretations, the assumed conclusions are tested and evaluated for validity before acceptance
as a valid indicator or procedure. As a result an analysis possesses a much greater potential for
producing valid and accurate conclusions
The following examples demonstrate how conclusions of association from anecdotal
experiences led to false conclusions:
Storks Bring Babies - In old London newly formed families built houses on the outskirts of
the city where land was affordable. This invaded the storks nesting grounds. The storks seeking
warmth and protection found the chimneys quite hospitable and were frequently seen. Because
babies are more common among new (young) families, the association between storks and
newborns led to the myth that storks deliver babies. Only after careful study did the intervening
variables of location and demographics (the real connections) become known.
Clever Hans – Clever Hans was an Arabian stallion owned by William von Osten with a
worldwide reputation of accurately answering questions by tapping his hoof. However, when
carefully tested it was discovered that Hans merely read the body language of his owner whose
unconscious bodily indicators informed Hans when to stop tapping his hoof. This ‘Clever Hans
Effect’ in interactive situations is why scientific tests are considered most valid if performed in
"double blind" studies.
Unfortunately many training programs rely on anecdotal experiences and their potentially
flawed information is accepted as fact by the participants.
In summary, the problems of gaining effective DBAM related knowledge (limited
accessibility, flawed contents, improper subcultural support and inefficient educational design)
must be overcome.

Professional Training Academies


Presently, the 50,000 new cadets that attend the police academy to become certified law
enforcement officers, as did the 800,000 existing officers (BJS, 2005), receive their first lie
detection education as a component of the academy’s interpersonal skills and communications
training.
While generally the academies provide excellent training for future LEOs, the lie detection
training is extremely inadequate in content (invalid information) and pedagogical design
(insufficient time for information comprehension and retention) (Wall and Culloo, 1973:431;
Docan-Morgan, 2007:153).
For example, a typical 15 week training academy offers less than eight hours of
interpersonal skill and communications training. While this is educationally inadequate for even
one complex topic, many academies lump all interpersonal communications (interrogation,
interviewing, interpersonal skills, radio communications, report writing and courtroom
interactions) into that allocated 8 hours of training (Bradford and Pynes, 1999; USBJS, 2009).
Chart 2
Police Academy Training
By Topical Category

Training Hours
500
400
300
200
100
0

* Includes Interviewing and Interrogation and all other interpersonal skills training
Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005; Wall &Culloo, 1973:431.

Sources of Academy Information:


Although some lessons are from personal experiences, biases and cultural myths, most
academy deception training is based on content from continuing education seminars attended by
the academy instructors. The instructor’s interpretation of that information is passed on to the
cadets.
As indicated above, seminar training has significant educational limitations which are also
passed on to the cadets. Although what is taught is a mixture of valid and invalid information, it
is mostly accepted as valid continuing and magnifying the problems associated with the error
embedded and flawed information (biased conclusions, low accuracy, unnecessary risks, etc.).

Subcultural Resocialization
Socialization and resocialization shape the beliefs, practices and attitudes of those becoming
members of a group.
The influence of the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) subculture provides the expectations,
behaviors, attitudes, values, and norms for those in law enforcement. This includes information
informally transmitted concerning deception and related interpersonal behaviors.
The moment a recruit enters the academy, subcultural training and resocialization begins
(Ainsworth, 1995). The purpose is to help recruits manage the stresses and difficult situation they
will face within their profession. Subcultural resocialization occurs by transmitting accepted
practices, beliefs and guiding rules through formal and informal means (Manning, 1995:472;
Van Maanen, 1974:85-86).
The formal socialization provided by the police academy training curriculum teaches “what
to do”, while informal socialization is typically provided in the field with more senior personnel
and is focused on, “Here is how things really work” (Fielding, 1988; Kappeler et al., 1998).
Although much of the resocialization process is positive and useful, some aspects can be
counter-productive, actually reducing deception skills. The reasons can be found within specific
characteristics and influences of the LEO subculture (Hickman and Reaves, 2006).
From the very beginning of academy training the recruit is exposed to a constant emphasis
on potential dangers with the chief source of that danger being identified as the general public
(Van Maanen, 1974; Kappeler, et. al., 1998). This creates a cynical distrust (Paoline, 2003) and
leads to the conclusion that “other officers are their only protection against a treacherous and
ostracizing world” (Barker, 1999:308). In other words, a ‘we versus they’ attitude toward
citizenry results (Kappeler et al., 1998; Skolnick, 1994; Sparrow et al., 1990; Westley, 1970;
Manning, 1995).
While this attitude helps to keep officers safe, it also includes the view that the public (any
non-LEO) is naïve and incorrect concerning law enforcement related information. As a result,
law enforcement officers come to distrust information not provided by other subcultural
members (Paoline, 2003). This creates the potential for two serious problems:
1. Regardless of external objective evidence, LEO approved deception training programs
are accepted as valid and will be formally and informally transmitted to other LEO’s;
2. When valid information is made available to LEO’s from a non-approved source, the
information is often rejected and the potential benefits never realized.
Another issue of concern is that recruits are taught to always ‘have the edge’ when dealing
with the public (Paoline, 2003). Maintaining this control (the situational upper-hand) is greatly
dependent on the officer’s interpersonal skills and abilities (Muir, 1977; Van Maanen, 1974). If
their assessment of a situation or person is incorrect (which may be the case when based on
flawed knowledge) the officer may respond inappropriately causing any number of problems for
both officer and citizen.
In other words, during subcultural resocialization process the academy training (flaws and
all) is further reinforced and more deeply internalized creating a resistant belief system that
includes any transmitted misinformation.

Resolving the Issues


To resolve the previously identified issues it is necessary to determine what goals must be
achieved and the objectives necessary accomplish those goals:

Goal 1: Provide Verified, State of the Art Information


Objective 1: Locate and accumulate relevant information from the research dispersed across the
fields of study and the thousands of research sources:
Objective 2: Evaluate that information for validity, effectiveness and potential usability:

Objective 3: Organize findings by mode of application and type of analysis:

Objective 4: Identify the most functional and compatible approaches and how they are best used.

Solution: With the increased concerns stemming from 9/11, more funding became available for
carefully designed and conducted academic DBAM research. From the research findings a
variety of new validated approaches have emerged and higher levels of effectiveness are
accessible. Although studies show we can learn to identify deception at levels above chance,
how much one can improve has not been fully determined (Frank and Feeley, 2003).
Many of the top researchers agree that a multimodal/multichannel triangulation approach
consisting of verified information that, if properly designed and imparted, could achieve
accuracy levels of 90% or more (DePaulo and Pfeifer, 1986).

Goal 2: Deliver Education Effectively


Objective 1: Prepare the information for maximum student comprehension and retention.
Translate difficult to comprehend academic jargon, writing style, referenced concepts, and
applied statistical techniques into an easily understood content.

Objective 2: Provide an instructional approach to achieve the greatest possible learning


outcomes. Because the information crosses many disciplines and is fairly complex, the findings
from educational psychology indicate a minimum course length of six weeks with 12 or more
weeks being as close to ideal as possible.

Objective 3: Develop an educational format appropriate as an undergraduate college course.

Objective 4: Provide evidence of achieving course objectives. Utilization of testing procedures to


verify information retention and the application of gained knowledge.

Solution: With deception related studies now generating sufficient and appropriate research
based information, DBAM can be taught as a full collegiate course within institutions of higher
education. Because the goal of higher education is to provide the best quality education possible,
the previous lack of research-based information greatly inhibited the acceptance of deception
related studies as a serious area of study rather than as a pseudo-scientific novelty.
To make the research knowledge available the findings must be identified from among the
many fields of study that have been performing relevant serious DBAM related research. These
findings must be isolated from the bulk of writings which are mostly pseudo-scientific.
Next the isolated information must be organized and pedagogically optimized. This is a
normal procedure for transforming an area of interest into an academically appropriate course.
Finally the course must be field tested to determine its fit and appropriateness as an
undergraduate course.

Goal 3: Manage Misinformation


Objective 1: Identify misinformation and its sources.
Objective 2: Defeat unverified information and encountered misinformation.

Objective 3: Inhibit future acceptance of subcultural indoctrinated misinformation.

Solution: As previously identified, the existing sources of deception training, cultural myth and
unverified anecdotal experiences taught as fact are all sources of misinformation. By
incorporating the validated research findings into instructional components the misinformation is
being replaced with tested findings. Socially internalized information is never removed but rather
it is blended with existing internalized information (Wrong, 1962). Presenting validated
information prior to subcultural indoctrination provides resistance to the misinformation that will
be offered in the resocialization process.

College Education and the LEO Subculture


As more recruits emerge with college backgrounds, a series of resulting changes have been
identified that can be used to reverse the negative aspects of the subcultural training.
When potential recruits are exposed to objective information prior to academy training they
are more likely to accept and rely on that information even if it is non-LEO based (Carter, Sapp,
& Stephens, 1989; Reaves, 1996; Walker, 1999; Britz, 1997; Haarr, 1997; Manning, 1994b;
Paoline et al., 2000, 2003; Walker, 1985 Chan, 1996; Fielding, 1994). However, those exposed
to non-LEO approved information after academy training will most likely reject it.
The simplest, most effective way to get officers to accept and use non-LEO based verified
information as complex and involved as deception is to provide a 12 or more week course (the
typical college semester or trimester). In other words, a college course where appropriate
content is presented in a manner that achieves the best learning outcomes and occurs before
entering an academy.
The following goals and objectives identify the steps necessary for achieving a high caliber
college appropriate course of deception related education:

Accomplishing the Goals


Educational Changes in Criminal Justice
Although deception does apply to most interpersonal interactions and communications, it
has and remains as a significant sub-field related to Criminal Justice. To implement these
solutions the role of criminal justice in academia must be understood along with the implicit
relationship deception maintains as a sub-discipline.

Higher Education
While not required for most entry level law enforcement, a college education is nonetheless
becoming the standard for those seeking a law enforcement career. This relatively new LEO
demographic variable provides a unique opportunity to improve existing and future criminal
justice professionals.
The LEO educational movement began almost 100 years ago with the initial thrust
beginning in the 1930’s. At that time officials began to realize the importance of education and
with more than 90% of their officers not having attended high school. In response they began
officially recommending that LEO’s need to receive more formal education.
Progress was glacially slow. By 1960 while many LEO’s had attended some high school,
few had any college at all. That began to change in 1968 with the creation of the National
Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the forerunner to the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) and with the “The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice” report (1967). The report’s emphasis on education was strongly
supported by the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance and the result was that criminal justice
began having a significant place within higher education as its own field of study and the ideal of
criminal justice professionals having advanced education began to receive significant
governmental support.
Still, by 1990 while some progress had been made, only 1 in 10 LEO had any college
education whatsoever (a yearly growth rate from 1930 of 0.17%). However, by 2003 over 30%
of employed LEO’s were college educated indicating major advancement in the effort (Hickman
and Reaves, 2006).
As the numbers continued escalating the field began to realize there were stumbling blocks
with Criminal Justice as a college major. Because of the experienced growth colleges were
realizing the criminal justice major was having an impact on higher education and one of the
most concerning was the need to clarify the educational expectations, goals and objectives.
Many academicians felt the pragmatic focus of criminal justice was inappropriate for higher
education. Although most criminal justice programs make it clear they are not teaching the
vocation of policing, the majority of the public (59%) indicated they believe higher education
should combine practical training with intellectual development (Pew Research, 2011). Today
most criminal justice programs in colleges have adopted exactly that approach.
However, the existence of criminal justice in higher education has had some significant and
encouraging impact. Studies show that college-educated officers are verbally more effective, less
authoritarian in their beliefs, more open minded to new ideas (including those from non-LEO
sources), place a higher value on ethical behaviors and are less likely to resort to violence when
carrying out their duties. In addition they take fewer sick days, receive fewer injuries, have fewer
complaints registered against them and are rated higher by their superiors (Carter, Sapp, &
Stephens, 1989; Reaves, 1996; Walker, 1999; Britz, 1997; Haarr, 1997; Manning, 1994b;
Paoline et al., 2000, 2003; Walker, 1985; Chan, 1996; Fielding, 1994). In short, college
educated LEO’s are better able and better suited in carrying out the changing duties needed in
our growing, complex and ever more sophisticated society.
Further, the presence of the major has stimulated other more academic areas that are without
question extremely valuable. Among these are forensic science, forensic psychology, corrections
and penology, cross cultural and applied criminology.
During the development of the criminal justice college program, many colleges began
offering specialized areas of concentrations and course options to compete for students. While
many of these reflected the popular media presentations of criminal justice (i.e. CSI, Profiler,
Criminal Minds, etc.) others invested in and implemented ‘in-house’ police academies (complete
with firing ranges and high speed driver training courses). However, many of the academies
failed due to devastating cost and liability issues and the ‘interest’ based specialized courses
were offered as electives because they lacked appropriate academic merit, were unable to
provide significant professional and/or personal advantages and some implied the potential of
unrealistic career opportunities.
Presently (2013) criminal justice programs from college to college have more or less
standardized their curriculum although many still offer specialized but narrowly focused courses
(i.e. arson investigation, crime scene photography, fingerprint identification, etc.).

Criminal Justice, Academia and DBAM Education


Even with the incredible growth of college based Criminal Justice programs, police
academies, continuing education seminars and personal experiences remain the primary
influencers in LEO training. The reliance on these primary influencers is the main reason for
LEO’s continued rejection of research based DBAM knowledge. The reasons for this include:
1. Although law enforcement is the primary consumer of deception training, their
ethnocentric subcultural norms remain resistant to information from non-LEO sources
(such as college professors and other non-LEO experts);
2. The enormous profits of the seminar training programs are powerful incentives for
encouraging the rejection of research that does not agree with their teachings. Because
these training programs have historically received LEO subcultural acceptance, other
approaches are often rejected without objective consideration.
3. The findings emerging from academic based research are written in field specific jargon
from a wide assortment of academic fields and widely dispersed among the journals and
other specialized information outlets. None of these make the information easy for the
layman to fully understand.
There are exceptions to deception related studies not being available within academic
institutions. However, these sources are not appropriate for a general undergraduate curriculum
because they are too narrow in scope, unavailable to typical undergraduate students or are based
on the same misinformation as taught in the seminars and academies. They include:
Graduate Psychological Research – As a topic of graduate research such projects are not
classes but very narrow research projects with extremely limited student involvement.
Graduate Courses in Criminal Justice - While some colleges provide masters and doctoral
level criminal justice programs, a few have provided interrogation and interviewing courses that
include deception related coursework. Again these rely on the same misinformation previously
discussed.
Business Based Courses in Fraud Examination – many business programs offer courses and
certifications as a fraud examiner. However, while the accounting related information is well
supported and these courses are valuable for business practices their DBAM related information
is extremely brief and derived from the same sources of erroneous deception information.

A Pilot Generalized DBAM Course


DBAM college courses are virtually non-existent, but if they were, would they work?
Would they be perceived as sufficiently academic? Will they generate sufficient enrollment?
Would they be perceived as useful? Are they applicable across different student majors?
A pilot program titled ‘Deception Management’ was developed and implemented as a test to
answer these questions.
Introducing DM
Beginning in 1999 a course had been developed based on the available research literature.
Titled ‘Deception Management’ (DM), the course was offered in succession at two accredited
residential colleges: Culver-Stockton College (CSC, Canton Missouri) and Blackburn College
(BC, Carlinville, Illinois) as a special topics class. At CSC the test was one course per year from
1999 through spring 2004. The course at BC was implemented in 2006 and is still offered every
spring.
With deception being historically tied to criminal justice, DM was listed as an elective
within the criminal justice department. With each college having their own protocols for
experimental courses, in each DM was successful in becoming a catalogue listed course within
that major.

DM Pilot Results
Although the course was listed as a criminal justice elective, all majors were allowed to take
the course for general credit as a general education elective.
After the initial offering student authored course evaluations noted it as a challenging
course, yet was extremely well liked. Similarly enrollment numbers were often double the size of
the typical class for that college. As the course earned student approval, primarily by word of
mouth to other students, enrollment began to shift from primarily criminal justice majors to
include students from virtually every major within the college although most popular with
students from Criminal Justice, psychology and business.
Student evaluations of the course (as required by the college) rated the course generally as
excellent. In addition, at both colleges the instructor received multiple requests for advanced and
independent study courses as well as offers to assist in related research.
Did DM achieve the identified needs (see ‘Resolving the Problem’)? While post-graduation
reports for the college as a whole did not address specific courses, many graduates chose to
maintain contact with the course instructor. In each case, students that took the course affirmed
the successful use of the course information. Comments from students that became LEO’s after
graduation indicated the ability to retain the factual course information over and above the
misinformation received during their academy training. One response from a graduate who is
now a St. Louis police officer wrote, "I use what you taught in multiple situations on a weekly
basis… narcotic investigations, assaults, domestic violence, and more. It has definitely given me
the upper hand especially when dealing with career criminals who know the game.” However,
one negative comment was posted about the course on a social media website:

Isn’t it bull that some professors teach classes like Deception Management? My
bf [boyfriend] took that class and I made a mistake & cheated on him. I was
hoping to never tell him. He asked me to write down what I did that day for his
[Deception Management] class. Then he started finding all these errors and stuff
and I finally confessed. He ruined my relationship. You should not teach those
things! (Anonymous, Yahoo Answers, 2008).

While a comprehensive objective evaluation has yet to be conducted, the existing evidence
indicates the course does achieve the desired goals.
Unintended Benefits
As with many implemented programs, several unintended results were revealed; with
respect to the DM course they were considered as unintended benefits such as: the college
received notoriety due to the unique quality and character of the program due to the unique
character of the course; evaluations by students included improved interpersonal skills (both
personally and professionally); their employers indicated an interest in their knowledge from the
course and were considering having the graduate use their knowledge by conducting in-house
training for co-workers.

Summary and Conclusions


Lie Detection has never been included as a serious general course in higher education for a
variety of reasons including lack of appropriate research, the vested interests of existing training
organizations, subcultural ethnocentrism and the applied focus of the topic.
Although the science of lie detecting remains incomplete, national events and resulting
imperatives stimulated serious research which has indicated lie detection must remain a subset of
the need and ability to identify other forms of hidden and undisclosed information. This larger
paradigm is being referred to as Deception and Behavioral Analysis and Management or DBAM.
While the methods employed in DBAM are not fool proof, they are based on valid
theoretical foundations and a body of information produced from of academic level research. The
pilot test of the DBAM based ‘Deception Management’ course suggests the course is of
sufficient academic caliber and utility to be accepted by accredited colleges as a reasonable
undergraduate course appropriate for students in any major field of study where enhanced
interpersonal skills are important (i.e. medical, legal, social and human resource fields, etc.).
Bibliography
Ainsworth, P. B. (1995). Psychology and policing in a changing world. Chichester: Wiley.
Akehurst, L., Koehnken, G., Bull, R., and Vrij, A. (1996). Police officers’ and lay persons’ beliefs regarding
deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461-471.
Anonymous, (2008). Yahoo Answers: Social Media Site http://answers.yahoo.com/
Barker, Joan C. (1999). Danger, Duty, and Dissolution: the Worldview of Los Angeles Police Officers. Prospect
Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Ben-Shakhar, Gershon and John J. Furedy (1990). Theories And Applications In The Detection Of Deception: A
Psychophysiological and International Perspective. Springer-Verlag Publishers New York 1990
Bond, C. F., and Bella M. DePaulo (2004). Accuracy and truth bias in the detection of deception: Manuscript in
Preparation.
Borum, Randy (2006). Educing information: Science and art in interrogation - Foundations for the future.
Intelligence Science Board Study on Educing Information Phase 1 Report (2006). National Defense Intelligence
College.
Borum, Randy (2005). “Approaching Truth: Behavioral Science Lessons on Educing Information from Human
Sources” In Educing Information NDIC 2006
Bradford, D. and Pynes, J.E. (1999). Police Academy training: why hasn't it kept up with practice? Police Quarterly,
2 (3), 283 – 301.
Britz, M. T. (1997). The police subculture and occupational socialization: Exploring individual and demographic
characteristics. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 127 – 146.
Buller, D.B., Strezyzewski, K.D., and Hunsacker, F.G (1991). Interpersonal deception: II. The Inferiority of
conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs 58, 25-40:1991
Campbell, W. Keith, & Sedikides, Constantine (1999). Self-Threat Magnifies the Self-Serving Bias: A Meta-
Analytic Integration. Review of General Psychology. 3, 23-43.
Camp, David A. (2011). Online Training Survey – Linked-In: Deception Detection Professionals Group.
Carter, D. L., Sapp, A. D., & Stephens, D. W. (1989). The state of police education: Policy direction for the 21st
century. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Chan, Janet (1996). Changing Police Culture. British Journal of Criminology 36 (1): 109-134.
Clark, Douglas and Marcia C. Linn (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: the impact of instructional time.
The Journal of learning sciences volume 12, number 4, pages 451 – 493.
DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249 –267.
Docan–Morgan, Tony (2007a). “Training Law Enforcement Officers To Detect Deception: A Critique Of Previous
Research and Framework for the Future”. Applied psychology in criminal justice, 3(2) 143–171.
Docan-Morgan, T. (2007b). Writing and communicating instructional objectives. In B.Hugenberg, L. Hugenberg, S.
Morreale, D. Worley, & D. Worley (Eds.), Basic communication course best practices: A training manual for
instructors (pp.25-41). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Department of Homeland Security (2013). http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mgmt/dhs-budget-in-brief-fy2013.pdf
Ekman P, O’Sullivan M, Frank M. G. (1999): a few can catch a liar? Psychological Science, 10, 263 – 6.
Ekman P, and M. O’Sullivan (1991): Who can catch a liar? Am Psychol 46:913-920.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). "Uniform Crime Statistics" Retrieved from
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html.
Fielding, N. G. (1994). Cop canteen culture. In T. Newburn & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Just boys doing business: Men,
masculinities and crime (pp. 46 – 63). New York: Routledge.
Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization and occupation competence. London:
Routledge.
Frank, Mark G and Thomas Hughes Feeley (2003). "To catch a liar: challenges for research and lie detection
training." Journal of applied communication research. Volume 31, 58–75.
George, Joey F., David P. Biros, Judee K. Burgoon, Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. (2003). Training professionals to detect
deception. ISI'03 Proceedings of the 1st NSF/NIJ conference on Intelligence and security informatics Springer-
Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg
Granhag, Pars Anders and Leif A. Stromwall (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge
University press New York, New York.
Harris Survey (12/2012). “Cost of a Bad Hire”. Harris Interactive for Careerbuilder.com. Retrived
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=12/13/2012&id=pr730&ed=12/31/2012
Haarr, R. H. (1997). Patterns of integration in a police patrol bureau: Race and gender barriers to integration. Justice
Quarterly, 14, 53 – 85.
Hickman, Matthew J., and Brian A. Reaves. 2006. Local police departments, 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice.
Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing
(2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Kassin, S. M.; Appleby, S. C.; Perillo, J. T. (February 2010). "Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future
directions". Legal and Criminological Psychology 15: 39–55.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the
interrogation room. Law & Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.
Köhnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eye witness statements: does it work? Social
Behavior 2:1-17, 1987
Mann, S., Vrij, A., and Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police Officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of
applied psychology 89, 137 – 149.
Manning, P. K. (1995). The police occupational culture in Anglo-American societies. In W. Bailey (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of police science (pp. 472 – 475). New York: Garland Publishing.
Manning, P. K. (1994b). Dynamics and tensions in police occupational culture. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan
State University.
Muir, W. K., Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paoline, Eugene A. III. (2003). “Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture”. Journal of Criminal
Justice 31 (2003) 199 – 214
Paoline, E. A., III, Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing:
Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17, 575 – 605.
PEW Research 2011 - http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1256.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967). The Challenge of Crime in
a Free Society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Reaves, B. A. (1996). Bureau of Justice statistics local police departments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Skolnick, Jerome H. (1994). Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: John
Wiley.
Sparrow, M. K., Moore, M. H., & Kennedy, D. M. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. United States: Basic
Books..
Stromwall, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers,
prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 9, 19-36.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Police and detectives. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm.
Van Maanen, J. (1974). Working the street: A developmental view of police behavior. In H. Jacob (Ed.), The
potential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 83 – 130 ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). An Empirical Test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview. Law and Human
Behavior, 30, 329-345.
Vrij, A., and Mann, S. (2001a). Telling and detecting lies in the high-stakes situation: the case of a convicted
murderer. Applied cognitive psychology, 15, 187 – 203.
Vrij, A., and Mann, S. (2001b). Who killed my relative? Police officers ability to detect real-life high stake lies.
Psychology, Crime, and Law, 7, 119 – 32.
Vrij, A (1998). "Interviewing Suspects". In Memon, A.; Vrij, A; Bull, R. Psychology and Law: Truthfulness,
Accuracy and Credibility. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. pp. 124–144.
Vrij, A., and Graham, S (1997). Individual differences between liars and the ability to detect lies. Expert evidence:
the international digestive human behavior, science and law, 5, 144 – 8.
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 20, 65–81.
Walker, S. (1999). The police in America: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, S. (1985). Racial minority and female employment in policing: The implications of ‘glacial’ change. Crime
and Delinquency, 31, 555 – 572.
Wall, C. R. & Culloo, L. A. (1973). State standards for law enforcement selection and training. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 1(4), 425-432.
Westley, W. A. (1970). Violence and the police: A sociological study of law, custom, and morality. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wrong, D.H. (1962). The Over-Socialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology*. Psychoanal. Rev., 49B:53-69.

Você também pode gostar