Risk Assessment in Deception: Presenting DARN and DRAT 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)
Overview Risk assessment in psychology Applying risk assessment to deception Deception Assessment Real-time Nexus (DARN) Deception Risk Assessment Technique (DRAT) Validation and Future Directions
Risk Assessment in Psychology Approaches to risk assessment include: - Clinical - Actuarial - Structured-Professional Judgement (SPJ) Risk assessment is used in forensic and clinical environments , for example, the HCR-20V3, SAM and VERA-2
Defining Deception Risk Assessment “the process of evaluating individuals, groups and organisations, whether state or non-state, to (1) characterise the likelihood they will commit acts of deception and (2) develop interventions to manage or reduce that likelihood” (Reid, 2016)
Application to Deception Accuracy rates of 100% in deception detection are currently unattainable Difficult to draw findings from group accuracy rates to the individual The purpose of developing dynamic and iterative risk assessment tools has been to provide a standardised, systematic and practical framework for gathering, considering and managing information in high stake decision-making Credibility judgements are risk judgements
Deception Assessment Real-time Nexus (DARN) The DARN has been developed as a screening tool for collecting and analysing information for use in deception detection Screening tool items were identified from 1) an in-depth review of the psychological and security literature of deception, and 2) SME input
INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE FUTURE THREAT CONTEXT USUAL SUSPICIOUS ACUTE LOW RISK INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE SOCIAL MEDIA INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE NO FURTHER ACTION SITUATION EXPERTISE CONSISTENCY IMPLICIT CONCERN PLAUSIBILITY
Deception Risk Assessment Technique (DRAT) DRAT was developed according to guidelines for the development of SPJ risk assessments (e.g. Cooke et al., 2012; Douglas, 2014; Douglas & Skeem, 2005; Kebbell & Porter, 2012) Logical item selection methodology was used combining 1) an in-depth literature, and 2) SME input to identify potential risk factors Items were separated into risks factors on a rational basis (Cooke et al., 2012) Items were coded for low, medium or high risk (Douglas, 2014)
Risk Factor 1: Context of Deception Situation Actors Current Threats Communication Medium Online Communication Characteristics In-Real-Life Communication Characteristics
Risk Factor 2: History Previous Behaviour – Non-Deceptive Previous Deceiver Interactions – UK Previous Deceiver Interactions – Others
Risk Factor 3: Nature of Deception Create and Identify Vulnerability and Exploit Conditioning the Target Impression Management Control of Information Credibility Enhancers Social Influencers
Risk Factor 4: Deceiver Deception Doctrine Gains Vs Losses Motivation Capabilities, Resources and Experience Deception Spontaneity → Planned Cognitive Performance Language Personality and Individual Differences Belief System
Risk Factor 5: Target Who is the Target? Stakes Motivation Target Characteristics Mindset – Cognition Mindset – Affect Capabilities – Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR)
Risk Scenarios Nature Severity Imminence Frequency/Duration Likelihood
Risk Management Strategies Monitoring Supervision Target Inoculation Planning Other Considerations
Validation and Future Directions Measures of Effectiveness Content Validation Case Studies Red Teaming
References Cooke, D. J., Hart, S. D., Logan, C., & Michie, C. (2012). Explicating the construct of psychopathy: Development and validation of a conceptual model, the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality (CAPP). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 242-252. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.746759. Douglas, K. S. (2014). Version 3 of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20V3): Relevance to violence risk assessment and management in forensic conditional release cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32, 557-576. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2134. Douglas, K. S., & Skeem, J. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 347-383. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347. Kebbell, M. R., & Porter, L. (2012). An intelligence assessment framework for identifying individuals at risk of committing acts of violent extremism against the West. Security Journal, 25, 212-228. doi: 10.1057sj.2011.19. Reid, I. D. (2016). A holistic, risk, and futures based approach to deception: Technological convergence and emerging patterns of conflict. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Thanks for listening! iain.reid@um.edu.mt