RECONNAISSANCEHow Reliable and Robust Is Human Ability to Recognize Suspicious Activity?

Security procedures at large public venues and transportation hubs rely upon vigilant and engaged security officers who are tasked, in part, with timely and appropriate responses to suspicious behavior of potential hostile actors. The presumption is that hostile actors, armed with the “guilty knowledge” of their true intention, will behave in non-normative ways distinct enough from the behavior of normal site users, thus providing opportunities for security authorities to detect this suspicious behavior. But how capable are individuals at detecting suspicious behavior?

CREST Research released a new report which offers a systematic review of the current evidence base for the human ability to accurately recognize suspicious behavior.

Here are the report’s Executive Summary, Introduction, and Conclusions:

Executive Summary

·  7033 unique studies were sifted to identify studies that examined the human ability to recognize suspicious behavior.

·  11 studies met the inclusion criteria. 

·  Seven studies looked at the difference in ability between experienced CCTV operators and controls; two looked at the influence of context; one on the influence of stressors; and one on the influence of training. 

·  No significant differences were found between experts and novices. Accuracy appears to be around chance level.

·  Familiarity with an area may have a positive effect on detecting suspicious behavior.

·  Participants exposed to security cues while carrying out tasks were more often correctly identified by observers as either innocent or hostile based on their behavior.

·  Behavior based training may increase an individual’s ability to recognize suspicious behavior. 

·  Individuals differ in cognitive and perceptual skills and therefore infer different meanings from viewed behavior. These differences in the interpretation of cues may affect the ability to accurately detect suspicious behavior.

·  Cues of hostile intent may be difficult to interpret accurately due to the observer’s absence of the perpetrator’s baseline ‘normal’ behavior with which to compare.

·  Establishing non-verbal indicators of hostile intent that are accurate across many contexts is difficult. Observers need knowledge of ‘normal’ behavior for each specific location.