Fraudster Behaviour in Interviews - Literature review Example

Fraudster Behaviour in Interviews Introduction Lying has always been considered as a moral problem. DePaulo et al. (2003) uses this terminology interchangeably with deception to describe a deliberate attempt by a communicator, whether successful or not, to create in another person a belief that the communicator knows is untrue without any forewarning. A majority of lies would be told for psychological reasons with people not feeling bad for telling such lies. People do not relish expressing all their thoughts and would therefore prefer to lie (Albrecht, Albrecht, Albrecht & Zimbelman 2012; Coyle & Thomson 2013; Goman 2013). Instead of showing a true self, one would prefer to censor own self so as to be perceived in a positive light. According to Hart, Fillmore and Griffith (2009), psychological lies would be used for self protection, avoiding conflict and tension and minimisation of ill will and hurt feelings. The history of psychological measures of deception such as the use of polygraphs has long been in existence. Recently, researchers have sought to identify liars by measuring their brain activity (Kranacher, Riley & Wells 2011). However, Hart, Fillmore and Griffith (2009) indicate that such psychological measures indirectly measure lying and hence the concern for validity. Speech content could reveal deception especially if the observer knows that what is being said is untrue. Comparing statements from the liar to facts could reveal deceit (Vrij 2008). Hence, it would be critical for the listener to identify any verbal cues that could lead to identification of deceit. As argued by Gamson et al. (2012) and Kapardis (2003), verbal cues have generally been accepted as being more reliable than non-verbal cues in detecting lies. An attentive listener would therefore be able to identify such cues. Emotions Liars at times face guilt and could be afraid of getting caught. This fear would cause such persons to become more nervous and concerned than those telling the truth. This is the guiding principle used to detect lies as given in police manuals (Hartwig, Granhag & Strömwall 2002; Matsumoto, Hwang, Skinner & Frank 2011; Vrij, Granhag & Porter 2010; Whelan, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft 2013). Detecting such emotions in a liar’s speech would involve being sensitive to their guilt and fear which according to Vrij (2008) could be expressed verbally when liars make negative comments. Negative comments like hate, dislike, useless, uncomfortable and the likes reflect negative affect which could reveal deceit. Furthermore, experiencing negative emotions could cause liars not to feel like associating with their lies. In this case, Vrij (2008) observes that such liars would give answers with general terms or those that do not give an explicit reference to themselves. This tendency of dissociation of self from own statements could lead to indirect statements that seek for evasion and distancing. Cognitive Effort It is normally difficult to fabricate a lie especially when there is no time for preparation. During such situations, the speech content of liars could give away the lie outright (Churyk, Lee & Clinton 2009; Reynolds & Rendle-Short 2010; Vrij 2008). This would be indicated by lack of specific details in the fabricated lie. As such, there would be increased use of generalising terms and shorter statements and reduced self references. It has also been noted that because of the inability of such liars to think of things that would assure them of not being caught lying, they would avoid being detailed and choose to be unclear, evasive or irrelevant. An interviewer would identify this when the liar uses repeated clusters deviation from the baseline and would include increased pauses between answers, speech stumbles and filler words like “uh huh,” um m” (Gamson et al. 2012, 4). Because of their inability to fabricate convincing lies, such liars would sound implausible. Lying has another cognitive demand of being able to remember what was said so as to replicate information given before when asked for the same. Memory failure among liars leads to contradiction or inconsistency where different details would be repeated over time (Buckhoff & Hansen 2002; Gamson, Gottesman, Milan & Weerasuriya 2012; Hartwig, M, Granhag, PA, Stromwall, Wolf, Vrij & Hjelmsater 2011; Villar, Arciuli & Paterson 2013). Gamson et al. (2012) support this postulate by noting that maintenance of a lie is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. The resultant mental strain on the brain would cause a liar to exhibit increased pauses between answers and speech stumbles. Furthermore, during an interview, a lot cognitive effort would go into suppressing the truth inwardly and monitoring outward movement. The use of more cognitive resources by liar as opposed to truth tellers makes them vulnerable to detection. Attempted Control Liars actively seek to avoid producing self-incriminating statements. As a result, they face a dilemma. The safest strategy for such persons would encompass being silent because keeping silent prevents giving away lies through speech. However, Vrij (2008) argues that liars fear remaining silent as this could arouse suspicion. As such, the best alternative would be to provide statements from which the listener or interviewer would be presented with the minimal possible lie-catching opportunities. According to Rossini (2011) and Vrij, Leal, Mann and Granhag (2011), liars achieve this through use of general and non-specific language. They could also provide short statements which do not give out a lot of details or giving irrelevant information to substitute for the information that the interviewee does not wish to share. Expertise in Lying There are people who are generally considered to be experts in lying. Such persons make it difficult for lie detectors to function appropriately. Indeed, Shaw, Porter and Brinke (2013) acknowledge the existence of expert liars and indicate that such persons would naturally not give any indications leading to suspicion, have no cognitive difficulties to lie and do not have any emotions of fear and guilt when lying. These are good psychologists. Vrij, Granhag and Porter (2010) give an example of America’s former president Bill Clinton who was endowed with the ability not to arouse any suspicion of lying based on his denial of engaging in sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In fact, his natural warmth and highly convincing and assertive speech earned him a standing ovation from his audience. Expert liars find no cognitive challenge in telling lies. According to Ulatowska (2013), they take time to plan their lies, perhaps with rehearsals to facilitate ease of deception. Even though liars should obviously prepare a plausible story, this could be difficult for novice liars. For example, when confronted by a wife on another woman’s contact found in the husband’s pockets, it would be required for such a husband to find a plausible and convincing answer to successfully lie about the situation (Newman, Berry & Richards 2003). This spontaneous invention of plausible answers has been noted by Holland-Clarke (2012) to be difficult to many liars, especially the novice ones. However, expert liars who are original thinkers would make use of their mental creativity and successfully handle such immediate cognitive necessity. Finally, expert liars have been said to be good psychologists. Unlike the novice liars, they would quickly have good insight into the interviewer’s thought process. As noted by Vrij, Granhag & Porter, “they have a sense of what other people want to hear and how to convey it persuasively” (2010, p.96). As such, expert lying could be associated with emotional intelligence acquired over time. Conclusion Verbal cues have been noted as being more reliable in detecting lies than non-verbal cues. In an interview situation, emotions of fear and guilt, cognitive overload indicators and attempted control would be useful in detecting lies. However, expert liars could easily get away with such measures than novice liars because of being more endowed with emotional intelligence than novice liars. Even so, interviewers should be keen on the interviewee’s verbal behaviour so as to easily detect any lies. References Albrecht, WS, Albrecht, CO, Albrecht, CC & Zimbelman, MF 2012, Fraud examination, 4th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Buckhoff, T & Hansen, J 2002, ‘Interviewing as a ‘forensic-type’ procedure’, Journal of Forensic Accounting, vol. 3, pp. 3 – 16. Churyk, NT, Lee, C, & Clinton, BD 2009, ‘Early detection of fraud: evidence from restatements’, Advances in Accounting Behavioural Research, vol. 12, pp.25 - 40 Coyle, IR & Thomson, DM 2013, ‘Opening up a can of worms: how do decision-makers decide when witnesses are telling the truth?’ Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, viewed 30 March 2014, http://eprints.usq.edu.au/24203/ DePaulo, BM, Malone, EB, Lindsay, JJ, Muhlenbruck, L, Charlton, K & Cooper, H 2003, ‘Cues to deception’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 74 – 118. Gamson, R, Gottesman, J, Milan, N & Weerasuriya, S 2012, Cues to catching deception in interviews, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, College Park, MD, viewed 30 March 2014, http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/CuesToCatchingDeception.pdf Goman, CK 2013, The truth about lies in the workplace: how to spot liars and what to do about them, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Hart, CL, Fillmore, DG & Griffith, JD 2009, ‘Indirect detection of deception: looking for change’, Current Research in Social Psychology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 134 – 42. Hartwig, M, Granhag, PA & Strömwall, LA 2002, ‘Deception detection: effects of conversational involvement and probing’, Psychology, Crime & Law, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1 – 13. Hartwig, M, Granhag, PA, Stromwall, L, Wolf, AG, Vrij, A & Hjelmsater, ER 2011, ‘Detecting deception in suspects: verbal cues as a function of interview strategy’, Psychology, Crime & Law, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 643 – 56. Holland-Clarke, A 2012, ‘Assessing beliefs to verbal and non-verbal cues: potential for lie detection in cases of benefit fraud’, BSc dissertation, University of Portsmouth. Kapardis, A 2003, Psychology and law: a critical introduction, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, CB. Kranacher, M, Riley, R & Wells, JT 2011, Forensic accounting and fraud examination, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Matsumoto, D, Hwang, HS, Skinner, L & Frank, M 2011, ‘Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception’, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, viewed 30 March 2014, http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence Newman, ML, Berry, DS & Richards, JM 2003, ‘Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 665 – 75. Reynolds, E & Rendle-Short, J 2010, ‘Cues to deception in context: response latency/gaps in denials and blame shifting’, British Journal of Social Psychology, viewed 30 March 2014, http://www.uq.edu.au/sjc/docs/Edward-deception.pdf Rossini, N 2011, ‘Deception cues in political speeches: verbal and non-verbal traits of prevarication’, Communication and Enactment, vol. 6800, pp. 406 – 18. Shaw, J, Porter, S & Brinke, L 2013, ‘Catching liars: training mental health and legal professionals to detect high-stakes lies’, The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 145 – 59. Ulatowska, J 2013, ‘Indicators of deception in different lie scenarios’, Annals of Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 127 – 46. Villar, G, Arciuli, J & Paterson, H 2013, ‘Linguistic indicators of a false confession’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 504 – 18. Vrij, A 2008, Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, PO. Vrij, A, Evans, H, Akehurst, L & Mann, S 2004, ‘Rapid judgements in assessing verbal and nonverbal cues: their potential for deception researchers and lie detection’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 283 - 96. Vrij, A, Granhag, PA & Porter, S 2010, ‘Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 89 – 121. Vrij, A, Leal, S, Mann, S & Granhag, P 2011, ‘A comparison between lying about intentions and past activities: verbal cues and detection accuracy’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 212 - 18. Whelan, CW, Wagstaff, GF & Wheatcroft, JM 2013, ‘High-stakes lies: verbal and nonverbal cues to deception in public appeals for help with missing or murdered relatives’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, viewed 30 March 2014, http://ifp.nyu.edu/ Read More