Towards a holistic model of deception: Theoretical developments and practitioner applications Dr Iain Reid (University of Malta) Dr Lynsey Gozna (University of Leicester/ Leicestershire Multi-Agency Child Sexual Exploitation Team) Dr Julian Boon (University of Leicester)

Outline The need for a holistic approach to deception The development of a theoretical model Validation by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Next steps

The need for a holistic approach Deception is protracted across interpersonal, online and security environments To counter wide-ranging vulnerabilities requires bespoke and proactive techniques The varying nature of information presented to deception targets can increase the challenge of assessing veracity with a contingent need to approach the deception identification task by incorporating multiple elements that can be utilized across domains

Model Development Drawing from multiple fields and approaches of deception in developing a unified framework will enable practitioners to access a wider array of tools to detect deception potentially improving ability to assess veracity (Whaley, 2006). An in vivo approach to deception detection covers the nuances and dynamic nature of the real world (Boon & Gozna, 2009).

Model Development A review of traditional and non-traditional approaches to deception was conducted Each proposed element of the deception and individual differences frameworks was assessed by SMEs (N=3) with experience in deception detection (3 – 26 years; M=15.67; SD=11.53)

Deception Framework

Individual Differences Framework

Model Validation and Refinement Scientist-Practitioner Approach (Jones & Mehr, 2007) In-depth interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs – N=19) Data was transcribed verbatim and analysed from a critical realist perspective (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012) Explanatory thematic analysis focussing on the semantic content led to the identification of 5 meta-themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012)

The Holistic Model of Deception Deceiver Intent Deception Tactics Interpretation Target

Deceiver A number of sub-themes identified were: Impression Management Stakes Motivation Background History Deceiver Vulnerabilities Target Audience Analysis Planning Spontaneity

Intent Behaviour Attitude Motive

Deception Tactics Context Control of Information Influencers Replicating Genuine Behaviour

Interpretation Source Attributes Risk Questioning/Interviewing Strategy Detecting Methods Surveillance/ISTAR

Target Decision-Making Stakes Individual Differences Motivation Capabilities and Resources

Deception may be considered as i) occurring where there is a motive ii) deceivers strategies will reflect type of interaction and communication medium iii) deception will occur across different communication mediums iv) deception may be detected through multiple approaches reflecting the type of interaction and medium v) deception detection approaches reflect context and availability

Limitations and Future Directions This model may not be representative of all areas of deception due to difficulties in accessing SMEs Acknowledgement that this model may be refined as new techniques emerge Although the model is developed from SME knowledge empirical validation is required Further areas identified for research include: online deception, the effect of culture, and risk

References Boon, J.C.W., & Gozna, L.F. (2009). Firing pea-shooters at elephants. Psychologist, 22, 762-764. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage. Jones, J. L., & Mehr, S. L. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of the scientist-practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 766-771. doi: 10.1177/0002764206296454. Whaley, B. (2006). Interdisciplinary musings on the history of counterdeception. Defense Intelligence Journal, 15, 31-50.

Questions? iain.reid@um.edu.mt