PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection Greetings Esteemed Students-Please Slowly and Carefully Read The Following

PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection
Greetings
Esteemed Students-
Please slowly and carefully read the following.
Well, we continue to live in extraordinary times. The global COVID-19 pandemic. Dismal
economic/vocational/professional prospects for many people. Political tensions and conflicts.
It's possible that some of you and/or some of your family and loved ones may have contracted
the virus and/or are not feeling well. Some of you may have unexpected financial and/or
personal issues. Some of you may be in unexpected and undesired situations.
Regardless of what happens next, I promise all of you that I will do everything possible to have
you (1) achieve all student learning outcomes, (2) finish, and (3) earn (good) grades and credit
for PSY 306. And I stand ready to be a mentor for any issues you may have during this
extraordinary time in our lives—academic or otherwise.
I’m prepared to offer PSY 306 in the traditional classroom environment, in a hybrid and/or
blended fashion, or totally online—depending on circumstances. Regardless, each class will
likely include (1) a questions/answer session initiated by both students and by me to ensure
understanding of PSY 306 curriculum, (2) review/analysis of work students and student groups
have already posted on the PSY 306 Canvas course Discussion site, (3) micro-lectures and some
longer lectures by me, (4) analysis of deception-detection-relevant video segments from
commercial film via student break-out/report-out groups, (5) student individual and group
presentations, (6) active learning exercises/activities applying the PSY 306 curriculum, and (7)
end-of-class online polling on a specific questions related to deception detection. I also will be
recording and posting all classes to facilitate review of material, and especially for students
whose situations may make it difficult to attend a specific class.
Most importantly, I'll here for each of you to help you academically, and otherwise. You can
contact me at any time via cell phone/text and email [see syllabus].
I am flexible to exceptions to any of the above given the extraordinary times in which we're
living.
Finally, we're all part of the Embry-Riddle family. Let's take care of each other. And I pledge to
do my best.
Your professor,
Dr. Bloom
[Syllabus and All Course Materials Posted on Canvas Learning Management System]
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott Arizona Campus
Psychology of Deception Detection PSY 306 01PC Credits: 3.0 Fall 2020
Classroom Location: Davis Learning Center Auditorium Day/Time: MWF 8:00am-8:50am
Faculty: R.W. Bloom, Ph.D., ABPP (Ret)
Office Location: Bldg: 59(Rm 106) Telephones: (O) 928-777-3837, (cell) 928-533-9740
Email: bloomr@erau.edu
Office Hours: MWF 10:00am-noon; TTH: noon-2:00PM [combination of traditional office and
Zoom office on PSY 365 Canvas course site depending on circumstances]
Other Meeting Times: combination of traditional office and Zoom open door policy…also by
appointment…and anytime you find me anywhere on campus or access me via phone, email or
Zoom…again, depending on circumstances
OFFICIAL COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course describes, exemplifies, and critiques contemporary research and scholarship on (1)
scientific psychology, (2) philosophy of science, and (3) hermeneutic perspectives related to the
detection of deception. Topics include the (1) incidence, prevalence, socio-cultural contexts,
definitions, and types of deception; (2) assessment approaches establishing the reliability,
validity, utility, and legal admissibility [within civil and criminal adjudication] of deception
indices and detection methods; (3) putative indices of deception comprising nonverbal behavior,
verbal behavior, and autonomic and central nervous system and other psychophysiological
phenomena; and (4) common deception detection methods.
GOALS
Students are expected to become sophisticated analysts of grounds, warrants and claims about (1)
deception, (2) deception detection, (3) individual/group/organizational deceptive and/or truthful
intent and behavior; (4) accurate information, misinformation, and disinformation; and (4)
epistemology, i.e., how one arrives at knowing something. The course can ‘count’ towards
graduation for the B.S. in Global Security and Intelligence Studies; a security or intelligence
minor or major (with approval of the appropriate security or intelligence faculty program
manager); a psychology minor or psychology major (with approval of the appropriate
psychology faculty program manager); an upper-level general education requirement; or an open
or designated elective for most academic majors. Before this course is taken, it is imperative that
students ensure how the course will ‘count’ by collaboration with College/Faculty advisors.
OFFICIAL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (SLOs)
SLO 1: Define, exemplify, and critique basic definitions, theories, and phenomena of
deception.
1A: The definitions of deception
1B: The types of deception and deception indicators
1C: Significant hypotheses of deception detection
1D: Self-assessed abilities of deception and deception detection
SLO 2: Describe, exemplify, and critique epistemological challenges of deception detection.

2A: Deception Detection: Issues of Scientific Methods
2B: Deception Detection: Legal Issues
2C: Deception Detection: Issues of Ground Truth
SLO 3: Within the limits of established reliability and validity, critique and employ
common/uncommon deception detection techniques.
3A: Torture
3B: Bogus Pipeline/Covert Detection
3C: Behavioral Analysis Interview
3D: Statement Validity Assessment
3E: Reality Monitoring
3F: Scientific Content Analysis
3G: Verifiability Approach
3H: Generic CIA Technique
3I: Psychometrics and Clinical Interviewing/Observation
3J: Hypnosis
3K: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and Ocular/Ocular-Motor Responses
3L: Psychoactive Chemicals and “Truth Serum”
3M: Voice Stress Analysis
3N: Thermal Imaging
3O: Facial Action Coding Systems (FACSs)
3P: (Traditional) Polygraph
3Q: Electroencephalogram (EEG)-P300 and Brain Fingerprinting
3R: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
3S: Transcranial Brain Stimulation
3T: Turn-Taking and Collective Interviewing
3U: Other Behavioral Indices: Autobiographical Implicit Association Test (aIAT),
Concealed Information-Reaction Time; Mouse and Keystroke Dynamics
3V: Other Interview/Interrogation Techniques
3W: Structured Analytic Techniques/Social Intelligence Analysis
3X: Detection Techniques for Intentions v. Actions
3Y: Japanese Applications of Concealed Information Tests
SLO 4: Describe, exemplify, and critique the future of deception detection.

REQUIRED TEXTS
American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/
Association for Psychological Science. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/
(B). Bloom, R. W. (2017). Notes (PowerPoints to be posted weekly on PSY 306 Canvas course
site and email’d to students).
(NYT) The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com or other global news coverage. For free
Times access, https://erau.libguides.com/NYT. For access problems, ask Hazy Library/Learning
Center Staff.
(R). Rosenfeld, J. P. (2018). (Ed.). Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent
Developments. London: Academic Press. [Available as hard-copy manuscript at Campus
Bookstore and online at: http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/rosenfeld/documents/Rosenfeld,
%20J.%20Peter.%20Detecting%20Concealed%20Information%20and%20Deception%20Recent
%20Developments.%20(PDF).pdf
SECONDARY TEXTS ON PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION DETECTION
-Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2017). Revenge versus rapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture
American Psychologist, 72(3), 266-277.
-Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The
efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field
sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(4), 421-430.
-Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics
fail and rapport gets results: Observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT) to
generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411-431.
-Anderson, S. A., & Nussbaum, M. C. (Eds.). (2018). Confronting torture: Essays on the
ethics, legality, history, and psychology of torture today. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago
Press
-Andrews, G. (2001). MKULTRA: The CIA’s Top Secret program in human experimentation
and behavior modification. Winston-Salem, NC: Healthnet Press.
-Basoglu, M., Livanou, M., & Crnobaric, C. (2007). Torture vs. other cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment: Is the distinction real or apparent? Archives of General Psychiatry, 64,
277-285.
-Blasbalg, U., Hershkowitz, I., & Karni-Visel, Y. (2018). Support, reluctance, and production in
child abuse investigative interviews. Psychology, Public Policy. and Law, 24(4) 518-527.
-Bloom, R. W. (2019). In search of the tell-tale heart. [Review of Detecting concealed
information and deception: Recent developments. American Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 245-
250.
-Bloom, R. W. (2015). The D word in the D world. [Review of Detecting deception: Current
challenges and cognitive approaches]. PsycCRITIQUES, 60(32),
http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques
-Bloom, R. W. Some articles from the International Bulletin of Political Psychology at

https://commons.erau.edu/ibpp
The psychological assessment of deception: Obvious and subtle items, obvious and subtle
subjects; Some psychological impediments to detecting deception: Challenges for the
intelligence analyst and political psychologist; Validity of polygraph procedures:
Postmodernist and strict constructionist approaches; The psychophysiology of detecting
lies: More problems; In passing; The political psychology of “as if” as a tool of security
policy; Post modernism and narrative truth: Philosophical implications of interrogation
research; The political psychology of deception research.
-Bloom, R. W. (2013). Foundations of psychological profiling: Terrorism, espionage, and

deception. CPC Press. (Section 4.6; Chapter 9).
-Bloom, R. W. (April 11, 2012). Knowledge of knowledge and deception. [Review of Memory
detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test. PsycCRITIQUES, 57(15).
http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques.
-Bloom, R. W. (2010). Truth and trust: trek or trick? [Review of the book Deception: From
ancient empires to Internet dating]. PsycCRITIQUES, 55(7), http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques.
-Bloom, R. W. (1984). Military deception: A clinical psychological analysis. Proceeding of the

9th Symposium: Psychology in the Department of Defense. USAFA-TR-84-2, 15-19.
-Bloom, R. W. (1984). Comment on "Measuring Machiavellianism with Mach V: A

psychometric investigation." Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 26-27.
-Bloom, R. W. (1982). Comment on 'Surprise and deception in Soviet military thought: Part 1.
Military Review, 62, 73-74.
-Boag, S. (2008). Making sense of subliminal perception. In A.M. Columbus (Ed.). Advances
in psychology research, 54. pp. 117-139. Hauppauge, NY, US: Nova Science Publishers.
-Bowen, M. (October 2003). The dark art of interrogation. The Atlantic,

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/10/the-dark-art-of-interrogation/302791/
-Break them down: Systematic use of psychological torture by US Forces. (May 2005).
Physicians for Human Rights.
-Brimbal, L., Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., & Meissner, C. A. (2019). Enhancing cooperation
and disclosure by manipulating affiliation and developing rapport in investigative interviews.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 107-115.
-Cabell, J.J., Moody, S.A., & Yang, Y. (2020). Evaluating effects on guilty and innocent
suspects: An effect taxonomy of interrogation techniques. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
26(2), 154-165.
-Ceci, S. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Memory Work: The royal road to false memories? Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 8, 351-364.
-Chinoy, S. (July 14, 2019). Facial recognition’s racist history. The New York Times, SR3.
-Coercive interrogation techniques: Do they work, are they reliable, and what did the FBI know
about them? (June 10, 2008). Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate. 110th Congress. Serial No. J-11098.
-Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program,
Foreword by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein, Findings and
Conclusions, Executive Summary" (PDF). United States Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-12-09. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
Declassification Revisions December 3, 2014. U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 113th Congress, 2nd sess.
-Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Insider threat mitigation.

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/videos/17_1031_NPPD_Insider-Threat.mp4
-Duke, M. C., Wood, J. M., Magee, J., & Escobar, H. (2018). The effectiveness of army field
manual interrogation approaches for educing information and building rapport. Law and Human
Behavior. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000299
-Duke, M. C., & Van Puyvelde, D. (2017). What science can teach us about “enhanced
interrogation”. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 30(2), 310-339.
-Duke, M.C., Wood, J.M., Magee, J., & Escobar, H. (2018). The effectiveness of army field
manual interrogation approaches for educing information and building rapport. Law and Human
Behavior, 42(5), 442-457.
-Educing information: Interrogation: Science and art: Foundations for the future. (2006).
Intelligence Science Board. Phase I Report. Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence
College.
-Ethics abandoned: Medical professionalism and detainee abuse in the war on terror.
(November 2013). Institute on Medicine as a Profession.
-European Psychologist. (2014). 19(3). Articles on deception, intention, and detection.

-Farah, M.J., Hutchinson, B., Phelps, E.A., & Wagner, A.D. (February 2014). Functional MRI-
based lie detection: Scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews/Neuroscience, 15, 123-
131.
-Fitzgerald, R.J., Price, H.L., & Valentine, T. (2018). Eyewitness identification: Live, photo,
and video lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(3), 307-325
-Frankel, T. (2012). The Ponzi scheme puzzle. Oxford University Press.
-Granhag, P.A., Kleinman, S. M., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Scharff technique: On how to
effectively elicit intelligence from human sources. International Journal of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence, 29(1), 132-150.
-Grassian, S. (January 2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington

University Journal of Law and Policy, 22, 327-383.
-Hazlett, G. (November, 2005). Research on detection of deception. What we know vs. what we
think we know. In Educing information: Interrogation: Science and Art: Foundations for the
Future. Intelligence Science Board: Phase 1 report. Washington, DC: National Defense
Intelligence College.
-Houston, P., Floyd, M., & Carnicero, S. (2012). Spy the lie. St. Martin’s Press.
-Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual-1983.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA%20Human%20Res%20Exploit%20A1-
G11.pdf https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA%20Human%20Res
%20Exploit%20H0-L17.pdf
-Intelligence interviewing: Teaching papers and case studies. (April 2009). Intelligence Science
Board. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
-Jones, D. N. (2016). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In

Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (Eds.). (2016). The dark side of personality: Science and
practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology. (pp. 87-107). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association.
-Jundi, S. (2013). Undercover and collective interviewing to detect deception.

https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/5924626/Shyma_Jundi_Undercover_and_Collective
_Interviewing_to_Detect_Deception.pdf
-Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the
literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.
-Kelly, C.E., & Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (2015). Examining the meso-level domains of
the interrogation taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 21(2), 179-191.
-Kelly, C.E., Russano, M.B., Miller, J.C., & Redlich, A.D. (2019). On the road to admission:
Engaging suspects with minimization. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(3), 166-180.
-Kim, S., Alison, L., & Christiansen, P. (2020). Observing rapport-based interpersonal
techniques to gather information from victims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 166-
175.
-Kubark counterintelligence interrogation. (July 1963).

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/docs/doc01.pdf
-Langleben, D.D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where
science, law, and policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 222-234.
-Lemov, R. (Fall 2011). Branwashing’s avatar: The curious career of Dr. Ewen Cameron.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rlemov/files/lemov-cameron-greyroom2011.pdf
-Lemov, R. (November 16, 2005). The birth of soft torture:CIA interrogation techniques-a
history. https://slate.com/technology/2005/11/the-birth-of-soft-torture.html
-Puente, A. E., & Belar, C.D. (February 13, 2017). Letter to President Trump advocating
against reinstituting enhanced interrogation techniques or any other form of torture or abusive
treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. [and other letters from American Psychological
Association leadership to U.S. Presidents/SecDefs/DCIs].
- Libet, Benjamin (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in
voluntary action. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 529–566.
-Lin, C.; Adolphs, R.; & Alvarez, R. M. (2018). Inferring whether officials are corruptible from
looking at their faces. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1807-1823.`
-Loftus, E. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518-537.
-Loftus, E. F., & Bernstein, D. M. (2005). Rich false memories: The royal road to success. In
A. F. Healy (Ed.). Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. (pp. 101-113).
-Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. NY:
McGraw-Hill.
-Lynn, S. J., Boycheva, E., Deming, A., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Hallquist, M.N. (2009). Forensic
hypnosis: The state of the science.In Skeem, J.L., Douglas, K.S., & Lilienfeld, S. O.
Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy. Guilford Press. (pp. 80-
99)
-Lynn, S.J., Matthews, A., & Barnes, S. (2009). Hypnosis and memory: From Bernheim to the
present. In Markman, K.D., Klein, W.M.P., & Suhr, J. A. (Eds.). Handbook of imagination and
mental stimulation. Psychological Press. (pp. 103- 118).
-Marks, J. (1979). The search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and Mind Control.
Times Books.
-McCoy, A. W. (2006). A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the war
on terror.
-McNally R. J. (2003). Recovering memories of trauma: A view from the laboratory.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 32-35.
-Meijer, E.H., Bente, G., Ben-Shakhar, G., and Schumacher, A.(2013). Detecting concealed
information from groups using a dynamic questioning approach: Simultaneous skin conductance
measurement and immediate feedback. Frontiers of Psychology, 4:68,
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00068.
-Miles. A. D. (January 8, 2016). Perspectives on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R43906.
-Milgram, S. (2004). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. NY: Harper Perennial

Modern Classic.
-Miller, J. D., Vize, C., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). A critical appraisal of the dark-
triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological
Sciences, 28(4), 353-360.
-Mindthoff, A., Evans, J.R., Perez, G. Woesterhoff, S.A., Olaguez, A.P., Klemfuss, J.Z., …
Woody, W.D. (2018). A survey of potential jurors’ perceptions of interrogations and
confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(4), 430-448.
-Moore, T. E. (2008/1992). Subliminal perception: Facts and fallacies. In S.O. Lilienfeld, J.

Ruscio, & S.J. Lynn (Eds.). Navigating the mindfield: A user's guide to distinguishing science
from pseudoscience in mental health. (pp. 589-601). Amherst, NY, US: Prometheus Books.
-Morgan, C.A., Rabinowitz, Y.G., Hilts, D., Weller, C.E., & Coric, V. (Fall 2013). Efficacy of
modified cognitive interviewing, compared to human judgements in detecting deception related
to bio-threat activities. Journal of Strategic Security, 6(3), 100-119.
-Mueller, D.H., Compo, N.S., Molina, J., Bryon, A., & Pimentel, P. S. (2015). Productive and
counterproductive interviewing techniques: Do law enforcement investigators know the
difference? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(3), 295-308.
-National Academy of Science’s Committee on Scientific Approaches to Understanding and

Maximizing the Validity and Reliability of Eyewitness Identification in Law Enforcement and
Courts. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. National Academy
Press.
-National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
-Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in

Milgram’s “Obedience” laboratory. Theory and Psychology, 25(5), 639-656.
-Normile, C. J., & Scherr, K.C. (2018). Police tactics and guilt status uniquely influence
suspects’ physiologic reactivity and resistance to confess. Law and Human Behavior, 42(6),
497-506.
-Office of Technology Assessment. (November 1983). Scientific validity of polygraph testing:
A research review and evaluation. Congress of the United States.
-O’Mara, S. (2015). Why torture doesn’t work: The neuroscience of interrogation. Harvard
University Press.
-Otgaar, H., Howe, M.L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E.
F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten
trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 14(6), 1072-1095.
-Rakoff, J. (April 18, 2019). Our lying eyes. The New York Review of Books, 53-54.
-Rakoff, J. S. (May 12, 2016). Neuroscience and the law: Don’t rush in. The New York Review
of Books, 30-32.
-Rejali, D. (2007). Torture and democracy. Princeton University Press.
- Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical

review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 363-375.
-Rogers, R. (2012). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. (3rd Ed.). NY: The
Guilford Press.
-Ross, C. (2000). Bluebird: Deliberate creation of multiple personality by psychiatrists.

Manitou Communications.
-Russano, M.B., Narchet, F.M., Kleinman, S.M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured
interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 847-859.
-Salamanowitz, N. (February 4, 2015). The case for pain neuroimaging in the courtroom;
Lessons from deception detection. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 139-148.
-Sauer, J.D., Palmer, M.A., & Brewer, N. (2019). Pitfalls in using eyewitness confidence to
diagnose the accuracy of an individual identification decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 25(3), 147-165.
-Selle, N.K., Agari, N., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2019). Hide or seek? Physiological responses
reflect both the decision and the attempt to conceal information. Psychological Science, 30(10),
1424-1433.
-Special Issue. Information gathering in law enforcement and intelligence settings: Advancing
theory and practice. (2014). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28.
-Special Review: Counterterrorism Detection and Interrogation Activities. (September 2001-

October 2003). (May 7, 2004). 2003-7123-IG. Office of the Inspector General.
-Stedmon, A.W., Eachus, P., Baillie, L., Tallis, H., Donkor, R., Edlin-White, R., & Bracewell, R.
(March 2015). Scalable interrogation; Eliciting human pheromones to deception in a security
interview setting. Applied Ergonomics, 47, 26-33.
-Sukumar, D., Wade, K.A., & Hodgson, J.S. (2016). Strategic disclosure of evidence:
Perspectives from psychology and law. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22(3), 306-313.
-Sullivan, J. F. (2002). Of spies and lies: A CIA lie detector remembers Vietnam. Lawrence,
KS: University of Kansas Press.
-The interrogation documents: Debating U.S. policy and methods. (Updated July 13, 2004).
The National Security Archive. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127
-Toliver, R. F. (1997). The interrogator: The story of Hanns Joachim Scharff master
interrogator of the Luftwaffe. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History.
-Tonegawa et al. (July 26, 2013). Creating a false memory in the hippocampus. Science,
341(6144), 387-391 .
-Trivers, R. (2011). The folly of fools: The logic of deceit and self. Basic Books.
-Trovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection. The American Journal of Police Science, 29,
848–881.
-Uncapher, M.R., Boyd-Meredith, J.T., Chow, T.E., Rissman, J., & Wagner, A.D. (June 3, 2015).
Goal-directed modulation of neural memory patterns: Implications for fMRI-based memory
detection. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(22), 8531-8545.
-Vallano, J.P., Slapinski, K.A., Steele, L.J., Briggs, A. P., &Pozzulo, J.D. (2019). Familiar
eyewitness identifications: The current state of affairs. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
25(3), 128-146.
-Verscshuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (2011). Memory detection: Theory and
application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge University Press.
-Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. (2nd Ed.). Chichester,
West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-Vrij, A., Granhag, P. S., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal
lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 11(3), 89–121.
-Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual review of Psychology, 54,
277-295.
-Wilder, U. (2017). The psychology of espionage and leaking in the digital age. Studies in
Intelligence, 61(2), 1-36.
-Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. NY:
Random House.
SECONDARY TEXTS ON SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY
-Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called
psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6) 543-554.
--Becker, A. (2018). What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics.
Basic Books.
-Chambers, C. (2017). The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for
Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice. Princeton University Press.
-Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. Sage.
-Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method. (4th ed). NY: Verso Books
-Garratay, J. A. (1954). The inter-relations of psychology and biography.
Psychological Bulletin, 51, 569-582.
-Grice, J., Barrett. P., Cota, L., Felix, C., Taylor, Z., Garner, S.,…Vest, A. (2017). Four
bad habits of modern psychologists. Behavioral Sciences, 7, 1-21.
-Henle, M. (1986). On the distinction between the phenomenal and physical object.
In M. Henle, (Ed.). 1879 and All That. New York, Columbia University Press. pp.
3-9.
_______. (1986). Episodes in the history of interaction: On knowing what one is
talking about. In M. Henle, (Ed.). 1879 and All That. New York, Columbia
University Press. pp. 10-21.
-Herman, E. (1995). The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in an Age
of Experts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-Kasser, T. (2017). Integrating psychobiography into psychology’s mainstream:
Introduction to the special section. American Psychologist, 72(5), 430-433.
- Kuhn T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (4th ed.). University of
Chicago Press.
-Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge
University Press.
-Littman, R. A. (1961). Psychology: The socially indifferent science. American
Psychologist, 16, 232-236.
-Markowitz, J. C. (October 15, 2016). There’s such a thing as too much neuroscience.
The New York Times, A21.
May, B. (1958). Methodological individualism: Definition and reduction. Philosophy
Of Science, 25, 21.
-McAdams, D.P. (2008). The person: An introduction to the science of personality
psychology. (5th ed.). NY: Wiley.
-Richards, G. (2002). The psychology of psychology. Theory and Psychology, 12(1), 7-
36.
-Robinson, D. N. (1995). An intellectual history of psychology. (3rd ed.). University
of Wisconsin Press.
-Schultz, W. T. (2005). (Ed.)., Handbook of Psychobiography, Oxford University Press.
-Smith, L.K., & Wissel, E.F. (2019). Microbes and the mind: How bacteria shape and
affect neurological processes, cognition, social relationships, development, and
pathology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 397-418.
-Vaughan-Blount, K., Rutherford, A., Baker, D., & Johnson, D. (2009). History’s
mysteries demystified: Becoming a psychologist-historian. American Journal of
Psychology, 122(1), 117-129.
-Walsh, R. T. G., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of
psychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice. Cambridge University Press.
-Williams, R. N. & Robinson, D. N.. (2015). (Eds.). Scientism: The new orthodoxy.
Bloombury Academic.
SCHEDULE OF PSY 306 PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION TECHNIQUES MODULES,

SLOs, ACTIVITIES, READING REQUIREMENTS, AND ASSIGNMENTS
Bloom Notes [B]

(R). Rosenfeld, J. P. (2018). (Ed.). Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent
Developments. London: Academic Press.
New York Times [NYT]
PsycNET/PsycINFO, American Psychological Association. [P]
Module #1. Basic Definitions, Theories, and Phenomena of Deception.

SLO 1A-1C.
Activities (Pre-Assessment):
-Each students reads [B] for Module 1
-Each student reads [R] Chapters 1-3; 15
-Each student has an opportunity to ask questions on the readings and any other course
materials.
-Each student listens to and engages in dialectic with faculty micro-lectures and macro-
lectures.
Activities (Assessments):
-Each student identifies one article from [NYT] that describes something that is ‘deception’
[noting the deception’s ‘what’, ‘why’ it should be classified as a ‘deception’, and ‘why’, if
deception, the deception occurred]—and adds to the Deception Detection Log maintained by
each student throughout the semester.
-Each student identifies one scientific abstract example from [P] that studies ‘deception’
[noting the (1) relevant independent and dependent variables, (2) main findings and conclusion,
(3) study’s credibility based on methodology [experimental design and statistics], and (4)
possible application to everyday life]—and adds to the Deception Detection Log maintained by
each student throughout the semester.
-Each student participates in a ‘breakout’ group wherein each group analyzes a video clip
from a commercial film—and (1) constructs a biopsychosocial narrative (viz., life story)
supporting the premise that an individual, group, organization, and/or larger masses of people
depicted in the video clip engage(s) in a deception—including what the deception is, why it’s a
deception, why the deception occurred, and what combinations of deductive/inductive/abductive
logics have been used to come to these conclusions.
--Each student within a semester-long group project begins and continues to develop group
project (see below under Assessment Activities: Group Project
(Semester-long)).
-Each student responds to a 1-question, end-of-each-class poll on a deception-detection-
relevant question.
-Each student completes the online multiple-choice Homework/Quiz #1.
Module #2. Epistemological Challenges of Deception Detection I.
SLOs 2A, 2B.
-Each student reads [R] Chapter 17
materials.
lectures.
Deception Detection Log items, ‘breakout’ group, Deception Detection Poll; Homework/Quiz
[none].
Module #3. Epistemological Challenges of Deception Detection II.

SLO 2C.
-Each student reads [R] Chapter [no reading]
materials.
lectures.
Deception Detection Log items, ‘breakout’ group, Deception Detection Poll, Homework/Quiz
#2.
Module #4. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques I.

SLO 3A-3C.
-Each student reads [R] Chapters 13-14
materials.
lectures.
#3.
Module #5. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques II.

SLO 3D-3F.
materials.
lectures.
#4.
Module #6. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques III.

SLO 3G-3J.
materials.
lectures.
#5.
Module #7. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques IV.

SLO 3K-3M.
materials.
lectures.
#6.
Module #8. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques V.

SLO 3N-3O.
materials.
lectures.
#7.
Module #9. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VI.

SLO 3P-3S.
-Each student reads [R] Chapters 6-7; 17
materials.
lectures.
#8.
Module #10. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VII.

SLO 3T-3W.
materials.
lectures.
#9.
Module #11. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VIII.

SLO 3X-3Y.
-Each students reads [B] for Module11
materials.
lectures.
#10.
Module #12. The Future of Deception Detection.

SLO 4.
-Each student reads [R] Chapter [no reading]
materials.
lectures.
Deception Detection Log items, ‘breakout’ group, Deception Detection Poll; Homework/Quiz
[none].
Final Examination: December 7, Monday, 8:00am-10:00am
More on pre-assessment and assessment activities and GRADING
Reading (Pre-Assessment Activities) (Rosenfeld [R])

There’s a weekly reading assignment on areas of deception detection from the Rosenfeld
Detecting concealed information and deception: Recent Developments textbook. Please read the
assignment before the week begins. Dr. Bloom will not cover the whole reading assignment in
class and expects students to bring up questions on what they don’t understand and/or what
isn’t covered but is of interest.
Reading (Pre-Assessment Activities) (Bloom Notes [B])

Every week: Dr. Bloom prepares PowerPoints on each week’s areas of deception detection. The
PowerPoints cover some but not all of each Rosenfeld reading assignment, as well as important
information not in the Rosenfeld textbook but vital to students’ understanding of abnormal
psychology. Please read the PowerPoints before the week begins. Dr. Bloom will not cover all
the PowerPoints in class and expects students to bring up questions on what they don’t
understand and/or what isn’t covered but is of interest. Each week’s Bloom Notes will be
posted on the PSY 306 01PC Canvas course site) and will be email’d to students.
Assessment Activities: Deception Detection Polls

Student will need to bring a laptop or other mobile ‘smart’ device to class to participate in polls
via Zoom.
Assessment Activities: Online Homeworks/Quizzes

• 10 Homeworks/Quizzes
– Multiple- choice format
– Coverage: main points as described in Bloom Notes, Rosenfeld textbook, class
discussions
– Collaboration with other students or anyone else during quiz administration and
open-book administration is fine
– Please ensure you know why chosen ‘right answers’ are the ‘right answers
– Each homework/quiz can be taken as many times as one wishes until arriving at
correct answers to all questions
Assessment Activities: Deception Detection Logs

Each student’s log should be maintained on PSY 306 online Discussion site in a PowerPoint
format with title of Deception Detection Log: full name of student. Students will be able to
read each other’s logs to pick up best practices and avoid bad practices. Scientific abstracts are
accessible via Hazy Library/Learning Center PsycNET/INFO data base.
Assessment Activities: Group Project (Semester-long)

• Groups of students will be randomly formed by Dr. Bloom
• Each group will choose an ERAU famous and ‘controversial’ individual [a ‘well-known’
political figure, a ‘star’ from the entertainment industry(ies), or some other well-known
public figure] whom has been identified via some mass/social media as engaged in
deception while speaking.
• Each group will then find a video in which the individual may be engaged in deception.
• Each group develops a Canvas Studio (video) Presentation of no more than 10 minutes
and accompanying PowerPoint on whether that individual is engaged in deception based
on scientific psychological theory, data, research, and/or scholarship.
• Latest draft of PowerPoint development for each group is maintained weekly on PSY 306
01PC online Discussion site…and all groups will be able to view and learn from the
drafts of all other groups. It is fine to use ‘best practices’ and avoid ‘worst practices’
of other groups.
• Video/PowerPoint process/format:
-Student-groups are randomly formed by Dr. Bloom and each will be given one
deception technique learned in class to apply to the individual.
-The student-group will develop and work with a referral question. (An example of a
referral question is “Did the individual (sexually) cheat on that individiual’s spouse?”
Another is ”Did the individual purposely lie about that individual’s academic background” or
“Did the individual engage in some specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior?”
(Example of an answer to a referral question is “The individual did not shoplift as that
individual did indeed deny”.
-Each student-group then applies the one deception detection technique provided by
Dr. Bloom in an attempt to discover the answer the referral question. This will involve
observing the individual via video and scoring the video by criteria inherent to the deception
detection technique.
-Each student-group will post iterations of its work online at the PSY 306 Course
Discussions area--weekly. Students from all groups are encouraged to critique and comment
on any and all other groups’ work, use best practices, and avoid bad practices.
-What follows is the required format for the PSY 306 Group Project.
 List verbal (V) and nonverbal (NV) indices suggesting truth telling
 For each indicator describe why it suggests truth telling.
 List V and NV indices suggesting lying.
 For each indicator describe why it suggests lying.
 Answer to referral question [and rationale for answer]: Rationale includes how
each student-group integrated indicators suggesting truth telling with those
suggesting lying to answer the referral question.
 Hindsight/Discussion. What could/should the respective student-group have done

differently?
-The finished GP will require maximum collaboration among all students in a group.
Students who don’t adequately participate in the group project (as decided by other GP
members via only listing the names of students who adequately participated on the first
page of their final group project PowerPoint will receive a grade of Incomplete (I) in the
PSY 306 course. These students will then have to meet with Dr. Bloom to come up with
a plan of action to receive a final grade different than an F (because the I turns into an F
after a grace period established by Embry-Riddle policy and which each student is
responsible for knowing by checking with Office of Records/Registration. Finally, all
students who adequately participate in each group will receive the same grade for the GP.
-Each student-group has the opportunity to present their work before the whole class near
the end of the semester. This presentation will be critiqued by Dr. Bloom and the class. Each
student-group will make final changes based on the critique and turn in hard-copy no later than
right before the PSY 306 01PC final exam.
Assessment Activities: Individual Final Examination

The final exam will consist of a video of an individual to be analyzed for the
presence/absence of deception via answering a referral question. The same format as for
the semester-long group project is to be used. The final exam is “open book”…i.e, students
can have access to all course materials and any other online materials…students can ‘surf’ online
but must work alone without help from anyone else. Think of the PSY 306 Group Project
(Semester-long) as a “dress-rehearsal” for the Final Examination.
Grading:
Deception Detection Polls: 10%
Deception Detection Logs: 25%
Online Homeworks/Quizzes: 15%
Group Project: 25%
Final Exam: 25%
-There are 10 Online Homeworks/Quizzes [5 points each, max score is 50 points, worth
15% total towards final grade
-Deception Detection Polls max score is 34 points [worth 10% total towards final grade]
- Deception Detection Logs max score is 84 points [worth 25% total towards final grade]
-Group Project max score is 84 points [worth 25% towards final grade]
-Individual Final Exam max score is 84 points [worth 25% towards final grade]
So...
303 - 336 total points = A

279 - 302 total points = B
245 - 278 total points = C
211 - 244 total points = D
below 211 points = F
PSY 306 01PC Canvas course Grades site will be maintained by Dr. Bloom throughout
semester.
Most Important Course Policy-Student Psychology.

Hard work, purposeful effort, common sense, creativity, humor, focus, fun, fervor, frisson, and
jouissance (Lacanian psychoanalytic term for adaptive socio-cognitive transgression) will take
the PSY 365 student a long, long way. So will taking notes in class, actively listening, and
astutely, or at least entertainingly, questioning/challenging Dr. Bloom.
EXTANT COURSE POLICIES/miscellany:
1-Students who incur even one unexcused absence and who find themselves between two final
grades at the end of the semester will be graded with the lower grade. Students are responsible
for knowing and complying with University policy on what constitutes an excused and
unexcused absence. Dr. Bloom will formally take attendance for each class.
2-Please respect your fellow students and your professor by being present in and prepared for
each class. ‘Being prepared’ denotes staying current on real world events relevant to abnormal
psychology. It also denotes having read/prepared all assignments (Pre-Assessment
Activities) before class begins.
3-Please carefully read this Syllabus (posted at the PSY 306 Canvas course site) at the beginning
of the course and refer to it throughout the semester. The syllabus is the statement of
requirements, Pre-Assessment/Assessment Activities, policies, and procedures. The student is
responsible for complying with this syllabus.
4-Extra Credit: None. That means, none.
5-A classroom climate in which everyone feels comfortable speaking, contributing, and
challenging and critiquing the ideas of students and the professor. Students are very highly
encouraged to ask questions in class for clarification of ideas….and especially to challenge
anything Dr. Bloom or other students say [in a professional, respectful fashion—even if the
latter is simulated].
6-Plagiarism and other aspects of academic dishonesty—e.g., cheating—and student

misconduct in the classroom are adjudicated according to University policy. It is the student’s
responsibility to be aware of what constitutes plagiarism, academic dishonesty, other sorts of
student misconduct in the classroom, and their potential consequences according to University
policy.
7-There may be surprise quizzes/exercises/simulations during the semester--also some other

intended and unintended surprises.
8- Students are expected to use basic features of the Canvas learning management system
supporting PSY 306 academics.
9-It is highly desired that students display a moral and ethical process towards using the
knowledge and capabilities developed from this course in the service of truth, justice, beauty,
commonwealth, and commonweal, as well as your own self-interest.
10-Students are expected to check their student my.erau.edu email addresses to ensure timely
PSY 306 notifications are read. Students may receive several emails per week from Dr. Bloom
sharing course-relevant information

PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection Greetings Esteemed Students-Please Slowly and Carefully Read The Following

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection Greetings Esteemed Students-Please Slowly and Carefully Read The Following

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection Greetings Esteemed Students-Please Slowly and Carefully Read The Following

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSY 306 01PC Psychology of Deception Detection

Please slowly and carefully read the following.

OFFICIAL COURSE DESCRIPTION

OFFICIAL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (SLOs)

SLO 2: Describe, exemplify, and critique epistemological challenges of deception detection.

SLO 4: Describe, exemplify, and critique the future of deception detection.

American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/

Association for Psychological Science. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/

SECONDARY TEXTS ON PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION DETECTION

-Bloom, R. W. Some articles from the International Bulletin of Political Psychology at

-Bloom, R. W. (2013). Foundations of psychological profiling: Terrorism, espionage, and

-Bloom, R. W. (1984). Military deception: A clinical psychological analysis. Proceeding of the

-Bloom, R. W. (1984). Comment on "Measuring Machiavellianism with Mach V: A

-Bowen, M. (October 2003). The dark art of interrogation. The Atlantic,

-Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Insider threat mitigation.

-European Psychologist. (2014). 19(3). Articles on deception, intention, and detection.

-Frankel, T. (2012). The Ponzi scheme puzzle. Oxford University Press.

-Grassian, S. (January 2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington

-Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual-1983.

-Jones, D. N. (2016). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In

-Jundi, S. (2013). Undercover and collective interviewing to detect deception.

-Kubark counterintelligence interrogation. (July 1963).

-Miles. A. D. (January 8, 2016). Perspectives on enhanced interrogation techniques.

-Milgram, S. (2004). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. NY: Harper Perennial

-Moore, T. E. (2008/1992). Subliminal perception: Facts and fallacies. In S.O. Lilienfeld, J.

-National Academy of Science’s Committee on Scientific Approaches to Understanding and

-Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in

-Rejali, D. (2007). Torture and democracy. Princeton University Press.

- Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical

-Ross, C. (2000). Bluebird: Deliberate creation of multiple personality by psychiatrists.

-Special Review: Counterterrorism Detection and Interrogation Activities. (September 2001-

SCHEDULE OF PSY 306 PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION TECHNIQUES MODULES,

Bloom Notes [B]

Module #1. Basic Definitions, Theories, and Phenomena of Deception.

Module #3. Epistemological Challenges of Deception Detection II.

Module #4. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques I.

Module #5. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques II.

Module #6. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques III.

Module #7. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques IV.

Module #8. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques V.

Module #9. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VI.

Module #10. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VII.

Module #11. Common/Uncommon Deception Detection Techniques VIII.

Module #12. The Future of Deception Detection.

Final Examination: December 7, Monday, 8:00am-10:00am

More on pre-assessment and assessment activities and GRADING

Reading (Pre-Assessment Activities) (Rosenfeld [R])

Reading (Pre-Assessment Activities) (Bloom Notes [B])

Assessment Activities: Deception Detection Polls

Assessment Activities: Online Homeworks/Quizzes

Assessment Activities: Deception Detection Logs

Assessment Activities: Group Project (Semester-long)

 For each indicator describe why it suggests truth telling.

 List V and NV indices suggesting lying.

 For each indicator describe why it suggests lying.

 Hindsight/Discussion. What could/should the respective student-group have done

Assessment Activities: Individual Final Examination