Towards a holistic model of deception:
Theoretical developments and
practitioner applications
Dr Iain Reid (University of Malta)
Dr Lynsey Gozna (University of Leicester/ Leicestershire
Multi-Agency Child Sexual Exploitation Team)
Dr Julian Boon (University of Leicester)
Outline
 The need for a holistic approach to deception
 The development of a theoretical model
 Validation by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
 Next steps
The need for a holistic approach
 Deception is protracted across interpersonal,
online and security environments
 To counter wide-ranging vulnerabilities requires
bespoke and proactive techniques
 The varying nature of information presented to
deception targets can increase the challenge of
assessing veracity with a contingent need to
approach the deception identification task by
incorporating multiple elements that can be
utilized across domains
Model Development
 Drawing from multiple fields and approaches of
deception in developing a unified framework will
enable practitioners to access a wider array of
tools to detect deception potentially improving
ability to assess veracity (Whaley, 2006).
 An in vivo approach to deception detection covers
the nuances and dynamic nature of the real world
(Boon & Gozna, 2009).
Model Development
 A review of traditional and non-traditional
approaches to deception was conducted
 Each proposed element of the deception and
individual differences frameworks was assessed by
SMEs (N=3) with experience in deception
detection (3 – 26 years; M=15.67; SD=11.53)
Deception Framework
Individual Differences Framework
Model Validation and Refinement
 Scientist-Practitioner Approach (Jones & Mehr, 2007)
 In-depth interviews with Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs – N=19)
 Data was transcribed verbatim and analysed from
a critical realist perspective (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest et al.,
2012)
 Explanatory thematic analysis focussing on the
semantic content led to the identification of 5
meta-themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012)
The Holistic Model of Deception
Deceiver
Target
Interpretation
Intent
Deception
Tactics
Deceiver
 A number of sub-themes identified were:
 Impression Management
 Stakes
 Motivation
 Background History
 Deceiver Vulnerabilities
 Target Audience Analysis
 Planning Spontaneity
Intent
 Behaviour
 Attitude
 Motive
Deception Tactics
 Context
 Control of Information
 Influencers
 Replicating Genuine Behaviour
Interpretation
 Source Attributes
 Risk
 Questioning/Interviewing Strategy
 Detecting Methods
 Surveillance/ISTAR
Target
 Decision-Making
 Stakes
 Individual Differences
 Motivation
 Capabilities and Resources
Deception may be considered as
 i) occurring where there is a motive
 ii) deceivers strategies will reflect type of interaction and
communication medium
 iii) deception will occur across different communication
mediums
 iv) deception may be detected through multiple approaches
reflecting the type of interaction and medium
 v) deception detection approaches reflect context and
availability
Limitations and Future Directions
 This model may not be representative of all areas
of deception due to difficulties in accessing SMEs
 Acknowledgement that this model may be refined
as new techniques emerge
 Although the model is developed from SME
knowledge empirical validation is required
 Further areas identified for research include:
online deception, the effect of culture, and risk
References
 Boon, J.C.W., & Gozna, L.F. (2009). Firing pea-shooters at




elephants. Psychologist, 22, 762-764.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied
Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.
Jones, J. L., & Mehr, S. L. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of
the scientist-practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50,
766-771. doi: 10.1177/0002764206296454.
Whaley, B. (2006). Interdisciplinary musings on the history of
counterdeception. Defense Intelligence Journal, 15, 31-50.
Questions?
 [email protected]