Dr. Glynis Bogaard
University of Maastricht
Workshop; lie detection
The old proverb "lies have short legs" suggests that liars sooner or later will be unmasked. However, in real life this turns out to be very different. Many small, everyday lies are never revealed, mainly because we are pretty good at telling convincing lies. Detecting lies, on the other hand, has proven to be difficult. We might as well just throw a coin to decide whether someone is lying, as we do not perform better than chance level. For everyday white lies this is not such a problem, but in police investigations, not correctly recognizing a liar can have dangerous consequences. How should we best detect lies then? Certainly not by focusing on gaze aversion, fidgeting and nervous behavior.
Dr. Frans Fluttert
Van Mesdagkliniek, GroninSenior Researcher, FPC Dr. S. van Mesdag, NL
Associate Professor, Molde University College, NO
Associate Professor, University of Southern Denmark, DK
Research Supervisor, Oslo University Hospital, NO
Workshop; ERM-Risk-management in Forensic Care
John is at 34 years when he was convicted by court order to forced admission in a forensic psychiatric hospital. His offence was in rage killing a man on the street. He didn't have any connection to the victim and there was no noticeable trigger.
John is mentally disabled and was diagnosed with Autism. He experiences the outside world as being threatening and he has a hostile attitude towards treatment. The endeavours in treatment focus on: (1) risk assessment in order to gain a better understanding of the nature and degree of John's violence-risk, and (2) applying the ERM-risk management strategy, gaining insight in John's personalized early warning signs of violent behaviours. By means of ERM John learns to recognize and manage his pre-cursors of violence which will assist him to anticipate better on a possible relapse with violence risk.
In the workshop will be highlighted how risk assessment and management are performed to patients like John. In particular, the ERM [Early Recognition Method] will be explained as one of the 'state of the art' risk-management strategies in forensic care.
Elsine van Os & Renate Geurts
When Employees Derail: Assessing and Managing Insider Risk
Data theft, fraud or violence within organizations typically don’t just happen spontaneously. It’s a process that takes place over time and is marked by a set of behaviors and situations that precede such malicious acts, so-called risk factors. Identifying risk factors is the key to assessing insider threats. But assessing threats is not enough to prevent harm from happening. Organizations must also respond appropriately and monitor the subject of concern. In this workshop, we will provide insight in how to assess and manage insider risk, by discussing the case of the 37-year-old technician Bill who starts behaving alarmingly towards his colleagues and boss after 20 years of committed service to the company.
Iris van Sintemaartensdijk, MsC
Workshop; interventions in Virtual Reality
This workshop will be all about using Virtual Reality in science, and about reproducing famous experiments like the Milgram experiment using VR. Furthermore there is a chance to experience VR firsthand through several devices.
Workshop; psychology behind sexual harassment
Dr. Maartje Schreuder
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience/The Maastricht Forensic Institute,
Maastricht University, The Netherlands
Consider a police officer investigating a drugs cartel, listening to a somewhat noisy intercepted phone call of a suspect. Would s/he rather hear the word ‘coat’ or ‘coke’ in the sentence ‘have you got the coat/coke’? Or would that just depend on what the suspect in fact said?
Scientific research has long recognized the influence that all kinds of cognitive bias have on perception, on search strategies, and on interpretation. Confirmation bias and expectancy bias are two of these bias forms that researchers are very well aware of and of which they make sure that they do not interfere with their experiments (Risinger et al., 2002; Rosenthal, 1994). As an example, they take care that the researcher who does the analysis does not know which participant is in which experimental condition. Otherwise, he might unconsciously misinterpret the results.
However, such ‘blind’ methods are not standard practice in forensic research. In forensic research, having background information about a case, or about the source of origin of a sample as being evidentiary or reference material, is rather standard practice. This could potentially constitute a risk (Broeders, 2006; Dror, 2006; Dror et al. 2006; Risinger et al., 2002; Saks and Koehler, 2005; Thompson, 2009); even 46% of the forensic science errors in the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org) could potentially be attributed to confirmation bias (Kukucka, Kassin, Zapf, & Dror, 2017).
In this presentation I will give examples of research that has been done on the effects of bias and context information on forensic experts’ analyses and interpretations of results in several forensic fields. Furthermore, I will propose a methodology with which forensic speech researchers in the Netherlands deal with the problem of bias and context information.