There is (yet another) recent study published by the American Psychological Association, which suggests a new airport security method for interviewing passengers is 20 times more effective in detecting deception than the TSA’s so-called SPOT program (Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques).
Several observations occur to me (You knew they would, didn’t you...?) First, SPOT operates on the premise that an individual intent on terrorism can be detected by certain visual behavioral clues. You know the list – nervous tics, sweating, lack of eye contact, or just generally squirrelly behavior, much of which is exhibited in the queue every time I travel. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study concluded the process had virtually no scientific basis, was badly flawed, and recommended completely defunding SPOT. Instead, TSA, loath to admit to a bad mistake, has expanded it to additional airports.
Comes now the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex in England, with the Controlled Cognitive Engagement method (CCE), based on a conversation-based screening method which they claim caught mock airline passengers with deceptive cover stories more than 20 times as often as agents who used the traditional method of examining body language for suspicious signs. Security agents at eight international airports in Europe claim to have detected dishonesty in 66 percent of the deceptive mock passengers, compared to just 3 percent for agents who observed physical signs thought to be associated with deception.
Here’s how the test went: Agents received one week of CCE classroom training, and a week of on-the-job training, covering myths about deception detection, to be tested at 8 European airports. Researchers recruited 204 mock passengers, including college acting students and undercover police detectives, who were paid 60 pounds (about $97) to participate and another 60 pounds if they avoided detection by security agents. Each mock passenger had a week to research a different deceptive cover story, and each had realistic tickets and joined genuine passengers in security lines.
Am I the only one who sees the inherent flaws in this approach?
- There is a strong monetary incentive to lie, and a research incentive to catch them at it by asking “trick” questions.
- Every one of them knows they are lying, and is likely to exhibit subtle markers similar to any other observational system.
- There is no validating correlative data about catching real (non-tester) passengers in lies... how would they know.
In effect, the experiment is not looking for evil-doers, it is looking for liars. The very act of being interviewed by an agent while in the security line, asking all manner of irrelevant and often personal questions, makes most people nervous as hell. So to quote the great American philosopher Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up." This one won’t work either.
