Training Professionals to Detect Deception.PPT

Training Professionals to Detect Deception Joey F. George, David P. Biros, Judee Burgoon J.F. Nunamaker, Jr. First NSF/NIJ Symposium on Intelligence and Security Informatics, June 2003 Overview Research Question Motivation Study Logistics Research Design Experimental Procedures Development of Materials Results Implications Conclusions Research Question Motivation People are not very good at detecting deception – in 50 to 60% range RQ: Whether training people to identify cues to deception detection helps improve their accuracy in detecting deception Past training effort results have been mixed What role might computerized training system play? Training Study Logistics Duration: 4 sessions: 10 Sept, 17 Sept, 1 Oct, 15 Oct 1 session for administering questionnaires, 3 for instruction Personnel: FSU: Joey George Kent Marett AFIT: Monti Knode, Monica Dziubinski, Mark Lankowski UofA: Judee Burgoon, Jay Nunamaker, Janna Crews, Jinwei Cao, Ming Lin, Mark Adkins Subjects: 168 officers in basic communications training program On Location Research Design Experimental Procedures Subjects reported for training Began with battery of instruments including knowledge judgment pre-tests Training Powerpoint component Video, audio only, or text examples End with additional instruments including knowledge judgment post-tests Development of Materials Curriculum materials Pre-tests post-tests Knowledge Judgment (deception detection) Other measurement instruments Agent99 Pilot at AZ Usability Recording of cues lecture by same people giving it at USAF facility Content exactly the same across delivery modes Screen Shot - View Examples Results: Knowledge Tests Results: Judgment Tests Results Trained groups beat untrained groups in knowledge tests No differences between trained and untrained groups on judgment tests No differences among treatment groups on knowledge tests No differences among treatment groups on judgment tests Overall trend of improvement on judgment test scores