Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice

By Rogers, Richard; Boals, Adriel et al. | Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Summer 2011 | Go to article overview

Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice


Rogers, Richard, Boals, Adriel, Drogin, Eric Y., Journal of Psychiatry & Law


The current threat of global terrorism has sparked a renewed interest in the development of more effective methods for the detection of deception. In the United States, the American Psychological Association (APA)-spurred by torture allegations involving terrorist suspects-established guidelines for professional practice regarding investigative methods that could be conceptualized as coercive. As affirmed by APA, psychological research can play an active and ethical role in the development of standardized methods for the detection of deception. Instead of focusing on external sources of terrorism, this conceptual paper argues for programmatic research on insider threats, specifically risks to national security posed by government and other employees. In briefly reviewing deception research, recent investigations of cognitive loads and deceptions hold particular promise, especially studies that systematically manipulate levels of cognitive load. These methods can be extended to collateral sources, farther minimizing ethical concerns while broadening the scope of deception investigation.

KEY WORDS: Deception, cognitive load, impression management, background investigations, national security.

In the post 9/11 world, the critical balance in the United States between national security interests and constitutional protections for federal and civilian employees is increasingly challenging to maintain. Regarding national security, the profound implications of even a few "missed" espionage cases cannot be overestimated. According to the Department of Defense (DoD) Personnel Security Research Center (Herbig, 2008), only 37 known spies initiated espionage activities in the United States since 1990; however, this small number tells only part of the story, since approximately 25% of recently apprehended spies had conducted lengthy espionage careers spanning two decades or more before their eventual apprehensions (see Herbig, 2008, Appendix A), Moreover, these numbers constitute a significant underestimate "based largely on open sources" (p. 1); the true number - including classified cases, cases under investigation, and undiscovered cases - cannot be known. Such cases inflict astronomical costs upon national security, compromising top-secret technology at a loss of what has been estimated as "billions of dollars" (Lang, 2005, p. 33), Moreover, other insider threats (e.g., sabotage and other maliciously counterproductive activities) share similar patterns with espionage and also critically endanger national security (Band et al., 2006). Beyond strictly financial implications, the National Threat Center of the U. S. Secret Service (Kowalski et al., 2008) has further concluded that sabotage activities can potentially destabilize core American infrastructures, such as telecommunications and the energy grid.

From a legal perspective, procedural fairness for federal and civilian employees is enshrined in the United States Constitutional right to due process. The Sixth Amendment protects each person from being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and this protection is extended to individual states by the 14th Amendment. In Mathews v, Eldridge (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "procedural" due process in noncriminal matters "requires analysis of the governmental and private interests that are affected" (p. 335) to determine whether sufficiently vital reasons can justify the government's actions. Of relevance to background investigations, Mathews and its appellate progeny afford employees procedural justice via "the same due process values developed within the court system" pertaining to "administrative agency proceedings or judicial settings outside of trial" (Kuckes, 2006, p. 10), In addition, "substantive" due process must also be afforded: Irrespective of whether codified rules were followed appropriately, the Government may not interfere with rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (U.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.