Galit Nahari: The Reality of 'Reality Monitoring’ (RM): Are we Ready to Apply RM in Real Life?

Duration: 9 mins 50 secs

Share this media item:

Embed this media item:

<iframe width="_width_" height="_height_" src="https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2077582/embed" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Choose size:

About this item

Available Formats

About this item

Description:	(No description)


Created:	2015-09-28 18:01
Collection:	Decepticon 2015
Publisher:	University of Cambridge
Copyright:	Dr S. Van der Zee
Language:	eng (English)
Keywords:	Deception; Reality Monitoring; Real World Application;


Abstract:	One distinguished approach for determining truths from lies is Reality Monitoring (RM), a content-based method. Studies show that the accuracy rate of RM is about 70%, a considerable level given that the average accuracy rate without using tools is only slightly above chance. However, to date, we are not aware of the use of RM by practitioners, and the pertinent questions are whether we are ready to apply RM in real life police interrogations, and whether RM is appropriate to serve as admissible evidence in court. In order to answer these questions, three main matters are relevant. First, regarding the external validity of RM research: RM is based mainly on the quality of the interviewee's memory, and verbal ability, factors that are relatively neglected in RM research. The ability to trust that what works in the lab, will also work in real life, is questionable. Second, regarding vulnerability to judgmental biases and countermeasures: RM coding, and consequently its accuracy, is affected by individual differences among coders, by cognitive biases (e.g., primacy effect, confirmation bias), and by attempts of the interviewees to respond in such a way that RM will judge their account as being truthful. This vulnerability may lead to erroneous decisions. Third, the decision criterion for a single statement: content features of the statement vary as a function of interviewee characteristics (e.g., personality, gender, verbal ability) and type of statement (e.g., alibi vs. insurance claim). This makes for a difficult decision regarding the quality of a single statement. These matters will be discussed from a practical perspective, and required steps toward applying RM in real-life will be suggested.

Abstract:

One distinguished approach for determining truths from lies is Reality Monitoring (RM), a content-based method. Studies show that the accuracy rate of RM is about 70%, a considerable level given that the average accuracy rate without using tools is only slightly above chance. However, to date, we are not aware of the use of RM by practitioners, and the pertinent questions are whether we are ready to apply RM in real life police interrogations, and whether RM is appropriate to serve as admissible evidence in court. In order to answer these questions, three main matters are relevant. First, regarding the external validity of RM research: RM is based mainly on the quality of the interviewee's memory, and verbal ability, factors that are relatively neglected in RM research. The ability to trust that what works in the lab, will also work in real life, is questionable. Second, regarding vulnerability to judgmental biases and countermeasures: RM coding, and consequently its accuracy, is affected by individual differences among coders, by cognitive biases (e.g., primacy effect, confirmation bias), and by attempts of the interviewees to respond in such a way that RM will judge their account as being truthful. This vulnerability may lead to erroneous decisions. Third, the decision criterion for a single statement: content features of the statement vary as a function of interviewee characteristics (e.g., personality, gender, verbal ability) and type of statement (e.g., alibi vs. insurance claim). This makes for a difficult decision regarding the quality of a single statement. These matters will be discussed from a practical perspective, and required steps toward applying RM in real-life will be suggested.

Available Formats

Format	Quality	Bitrate	Size
MPEG-4 Video	480x360	182.26 kbits/sec	13.13 MB	View	Download
WebM	480x360	178.45 kbits/sec	12.87 MB	View	Download
iPod Video	480x360	353.92 kbits/sec	25.49 MB	View	Download
MP3	44100 Hz	249.96 kbits/sec	18.03 MB	Listen	Download
Auto *	(Allows browser to choose a format it supports)