1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Risk Factor 1: Context of Deception
Situation
Actors
Current Threats
Communication Medium
Online Communication Characteristics
In-Real-Life Communication Characteristics

10. Risk Factor 2: History Previous Behaviour – Non-Deceptive
Previous Deceiver Interactions – UK
Previous Deceiver Interactions – Others

11. Risk Factor 3: Nature of Deception
Create and Identify Vulnerability and Exploit
Conditioning the Target
Impression Management
Control of Information
Credibility Enhancers
Social Influencers

12. 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

13. Risk Factor 5: Target Who is the Target? Stakes Motivation
Target Characteristics
Mindset – Cognition
Mindset – Affect
Capabilities – Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR)

14. Risk Scenarios
Nature
Severity
Imminence
Frequency/Duration
Likelihood

15. Risk Management Strategies
Monitoring
Supervision
Target Inoculation Planning
Other Considerations

16. Validation and Future Directions
Measures of Effectiveness
Content Validation
Case Studies
Red Teaming

17. 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, doi: /
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, doi: /bsl.2134.
Douglas, K. S., & Skeem, J. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, doi: /
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, doi: sj
Reid, I. D. (2016). A holistic, risk, and futures based approach to deception: Technological convergence and emerging patterns of conflict. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

18. Thanks for listening!