Controlled Cognitive Engagement
A recent study is being conducted by the American Psychological Association in United Kingdom airports. Airport security agents are being trained to use a conversational based screening method rather than the traditional method of examining body language (Chakrabarti, Strauss). In this experiment lasting approximately eight months, the new screening method was 66 percent effective in determining dishonesty in the fake passengers compared to only 3 percent when just examining body language (Dando, Bull).
In this new experimental study called the Controlled Cognitive Engagement method (CCE), security agents engage in friendly, informal conversation by asking passengers seemingly unrelated and unpredictable questions about information the passenger should know (Edman). Regular travelers should not feel any pressure and it should not seem like an interrogation. Typical questions often include the name of the a high school principal or the first job they worked for. The research team recruited 204 participants with 113 male and 91 female participants. The group included college students and undercover detectives. The participants each received £60 and an additional £60 was awarded if they were able to avoid being detected by the security agents. Each of the participants were given a week to come up with a story to tell agents (Ekman).
The CCE method requires more thinking on the agent’s side who must think of different questions to ask each passenger rather than simply repeating old ones. This limits the criminal’s ability to predict what questions will be asked and their ability to rehearse them. The risk of racial profiling is also reduced with the same procedure being used for each passenger. The suspicious signs methods used in most airports is not very effective but is often used because of its cheap training (Fisher, Geiselman).
References
Chakrabarti, S., & Strauss, A. (2002). Carnival booth: An algorithm for defeating the computer-based passenger screening system. First Mon-day, 10. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/index.html
Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training police officers to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 189–202. http://dx .doi.org/10.1002/jip.145
Dando, C. J., Bull, R., Ormerod, T. C., & Sandham, A. (2013). Helping to sort the liars from thetruth-tellers: The gradual revelation of information during investigative interviews. [Advance online publication]. Legal and Criminological Psychology, n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12016 DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
Ekman, P. (2009). Lie-catching and micro-expressions. In C. Martin (Ed.), The philosophy of deception. Oxford: Oxford University Press http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327939.003.0008 Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processes accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social congnition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
