在国家安全调查中应用欺骗的认知模型:心理学研究、法律和伦理实践的考虑

R. Rogers, A. Boals, E. Drogin
{"title":"在国家安全调查中应用欺骗的认知模型:心理学研究、法律和伦理实践的考虑","authors":"R. Rogers, A. Boals, E. Drogin","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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, further minimizing ethical concerns while broadening the scope of deception investigation.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"154 1","pages":"339 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice\",\"authors\":\"R. Rogers, A. Boals, E. Drogin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/009318531103900209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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, further minimizing ethical concerns while broadening the scope of deception investigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"volume\":\"154 1\",\"pages\":\"339 - 364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

当前全球恐怖主义的威胁使人们对开发更有效的识破欺骗的方法重新产生了兴趣。在美国,美国心理协会(APA)受到涉及恐怖分子嫌疑人的酷刑指控的推动,制定了关于可能被概念化为强制性的调查方法的专业实践准则。正如APA所肯定的那样,心理学研究可以在开发检测欺骗的标准化方法方面发挥积极和道德的作用。与其关注恐怖主义的外部来源,这篇概念性论文主张对内部威胁进行程序化研究,特别是政府和其他雇员对国家安全构成的风险。在简要回顾欺骗研究时,最近对认知负荷和欺骗的调查尤其有希望,特别是对系统地操纵认知负荷水平的研究。这些方法可以扩展到附带来源,进一步减少伦理问题,同时扩大欺骗调查的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice
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, further minimizing ethical concerns while broadening the scope of deception investigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信