Practice makes perfect, keep it simple, less is more, listen and learn: Basic rules for successful interviewing by secur

1. Tom Ormerod & Coral DandoInvestigative Expertise Unit, Dept of PsychologyLancaster University, UK4th Annual iIIRG conference, Dundee, June 2011Funding: UK Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure& European Commission JLS/2007/EPCIP Practice makes perfect, keep it simple, less is more, listen and learn: Basic rules for successful interviewing by security screeners

2. Overview • Context – aviation security screening • Approaches to security screening • Empirical study comparing methods • Predictors of successful deception detection • Evaluation of ‘client’ interview contexts

3. Current ‘Suspicious Signs’ approach • Process • Passenger face-to-face interview • 14-point screener ‘security question’ •  ‘selectees’ subject to detailed search • Signs checklist • Documentation & Journey • Appearance & behaviour • Based on signs associated with previous terrorist events

4. Specifying an alternative approach • Behaviour change & deception detection • Vrij (2008): Cognitive effort and deception • Chandler & Sweller (1991): Cognitive load altered by instructional interventions and interview interaction • Information gathering • Dando & Bull (2010): Eliciting elaborate responses for verbal cues to deception • Vrij et al. (2007): Maximise cognitive effort by information gathering and switching between topics. • Veracity testing • Dunbar (2000): The problem of reasoning to consistency • Ormerod (2010) - Goal-directed inconsistency detection

5. Controlled Cognitive Engagement (CCE) • Process • Incremental phased questioning • Screener controls the conversation • Stages • Creating a baseline • Building rapport • Baselining behaviour • Open questioning • Elicit information • Commit pax to a truth version • Testing the account • Create/resolve suspicions • Observe behaviour change

6. Study: Detection testing • Location • Manchester Airport • Design • CCE vs. Current (suspicious signs) screening • Real vs. mock passengers • Method • Staff received 4 days CCE training + 2 days OJT • Approx. 50 participants per condition • Mock Passengers • Diverse sample (non-stereotyped) • Participant-generated deceptions • Incentivised performance

7. Results: Deception detection (mock passengers)

8. Coding questions and answers

9. Regression model Detected (1/0) = Time since study inception (hours) p<.01 + Passenger information items p<.01 + Screener talk (words) p<.05 + Open & focussed questions (No.) p<.05 + Closed & leading questions (No.) NS

10. Practice makes perfect: Trial week

11. Listen and learn: Information yield

12. Less is more: Screener talk (words)

13. Keep it simple: Question types

14. Summary • Detection • CCE > Current (suspicious signs approach) • Practice • CCE detection rates rose from 13% week 1 to 79% week 2 • Information yield • Detected mock passengers gave 20-25% less information than real or undetected mock passengers  cue to veracity ? • Screener talk • CCE - 35% fewer words with detected than undetected passengers. • Question types • Open & focussed: CCE > Current, Closed & leading: Current > CCE • Open & focussed Qs yield higher detection rates

15. Three kinds of interviewing

16. Focus Elicitation Corroboration Suspicion

17. Formality Informal Informal Formal

18. Control Interviewee Interviewer Interviewer

19. Conclusions • Client interviewing is found in: • Security screening • Benefits/NHS/Insurance etc • Offenders on licence • Client interviews require: • Inferential evaluation • Rapport-building / interpersonal interaction • Interviewer control • These skills need: • Practice (to listen and infer) • Structure through a staged process • Appropriate questioning across phases