Efficacy Of Combined Interview Methods For Detecting Deception Article Review Examples

In the paper, the authors seek to establish whether using a combination of methods of detecting deception would increases the effectiveness of the methods and the accuracy of the results. The authors are aware of the effectiveness and accuracy of each of the three methods namely Modified Cognitive Interviewing, MCI, Forced Choice Testing, FCT and autobiographical implicit association testing, aIAT. Apart from that, the authors understood that the deception rate about a threat was usually below 50%, and for this reason, they wanted to establish the extent to level of effectiveness of the three methods under low-base-rate conditions.
Scientists performed this study because they wanted to find out whether aIAT and MCI methods of detecting deception are based on “cognitive load” model that is for the opinion that a deceptive person uses more mental energy than a truthful person does.
In an effort to achieve their main objectives, the researchers collected sampling units using newspaper advertisement, sampled them, divided them in two groups, deceptive and truthful groups, and gave them instructions of what was expected of them. after that, the researchers conducted a structured interview to sampling units regarding MCI and FCT, while adopted the use of a computerized program on the aIAT method. All these were done to establish the level at which participants would tell lies or truth.
I am of the opinion that security agencies should adopt the use of MCI and FCT because they are effective and abandon the use of aIAT method because it does not allow many suspects to be appearing to the police for questioning. I also recommend that one should use more than one method of deception detection for effective and accurate results.

Works cited

Morgan, Charles, Yaron Rabinowitz, Robert Leidy, and Vladimir Coric. "Efficacy of Combining Interview Techniques in Detecting Deception Related to Bio-threat Issues." Behavioral Sciences and the Law 32. (2014): 269–285. Print.