Your Brain Activity Can Predict if You Might Commit a Crime.

Credit: Bob Elbert, Iowa State University
 
Iowa State researchers measured brain activity to better understand cybersecurity
threats and identify what motivates employees to violate company policy.
Scientists are making amazing and scary breakthroughs in predicting who may one day commit a criminal act.  In this study, researchers measured the activity in the brains of test subjects when presented with a variety of situations to see if there are measurable activity differences between people who may or may not commit a crime in the future.

Sound like something out of a sci-fi movie?

Stephen Spielberg's 2002 film, Minority Report, is based on the idea of being able to predict crime.  In the movie, based on a short story by  Philip K. Dick and adapted into a screenplay by Scott Frank, crime is predicted through the use of three psychic "pre-cogs" who work in unison in "PreCrime", a specialized police department.

Without getting into the story, this is the idea that researchers at Iowa State University explored, using electroencephalograms rather than psychics.  The result is much the same, though in this study the focus is on trying to identify prospective employees who may be cybersecurity threats.  Repeat, may be.

As this technology develops, we may see it used in hiring situations, with people who are innocent of any crime or security breach being denied employment because of "predictive" brain activity.  May we see it in schools?  In the military?  In the criminal justice system as in the movie?  There are some frightening possibilities here.

The questions of civil and employment rights from this are yet to be explored, but consider today's issues of glass ceilings in corporations that block the promotion of women and many minorities.  This is a very real problem for millions of working stiffs across our economy based on something they have no control over.

There are questions of the basic fairness of such a practice, and the legality.

Could the use of this and similar technologies create a permanent economic under-class based solely on the possibility that one might do something criminal.  No guilt or innocence to be established, no accusers you can confront in court, no recourse.  You can imagine the legal challenges to such a screening practice and the lengths that some will go to to use the techniques whether it is legal or not.

This is a subject that offers many story lines against a future in which we all are tested in some point in our lives, with our personal futures defined not by our actions, but by a simple possibility that we may - or may not - do something.

Here's the story:
*  *  *  *  *


Brain activity tested to identify cybersecurity threats

The old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link certainly applies to the risk organizations face in defending against cybersecurity threats. Employees pose a danger that can be just as damaging as a hacker.

Iowa State University researchers are working to better understand these internal threats by getting inside the minds of employees who put their company at risk. To do that, they measured brain activity to identify what might motivate an employee to violate company policy and sell or trade sensitive information. The study found that self-control is a significant factor.

Prediction in Criminology
by David P. Farrington

Click on image for details
Researchers defined a security violation as any unauthorized access to confidential data, which could include copying, transferring or selling that information to a third party for personal gains. In the study, published in the Journal of Management Information Systems, Qing Hu, Union Pacific Professor in Information Systems, and his colleagues found that people with low self-control spent less time considering the consequences of major security violations.

"What we can tell from this current study is that there are differences. The low self-control people and the high self-control people have different brain reactions when they are looking at security scenarios," Hu said. "If employees have low self-control to start with, they might be more tempted to commit a security violation, if the situation presents itself."

The study, a first of its kind, used EEG to measure brain activity and examines how people would react in a series of security scenarios. Researchers found people with high self-control took longer to contemplate high-risk situations. Instead of seeing opportunity, or instant reward, it's possible they thought about how their actions might damage their career or lead to possible criminal charges, Hu said.

For the study, researchers surveyed 350 undergraduate students to identify those with high and low self-control. A total of 40 students -- from both the high and low ends of the spectrum -- were then asked to do further testing in the Neuroscience Research Lab at ISU's College of Business. They were given a series of security scenarios, ranging from minor to major violations, and had to decide how to respond while researchers measured their brain activity. Robert West, a professor of psychology, analyzed the results.

"When people are deliberating these decisions, we see activity in the prefrontal cortex that is related to risky decision making, working memory and evaluation of reward versus punishment," West said. "People with low self-control were faster to make decisions for the major violation scenarios. It really seems like they were not thinking about it as much."

The findings reflect characteristics of self-control in criminology, in which individuals with low self-control act impulsively and make riskier decisions. However, with traditional research methods and techniques, researchers could not determine if the low self-control group was more likely to act based on immediate gain, without considering the long-term loss, as compared to the high self-control group.

It's possible that social desirability bias, or the tendency to act in way that is viewed as desirable, masked the true intentions of participants. With neuroscience methods and techniques, the results are more reliable and provide a better understanding of human decision making in various circumstances, researchers said.

What does this mean for business?
The number of security violations grew to nearly 43 million last year, up from almost 29 million in 2013, according to The Global State of Information Security® Survey 2015. The survey found employees, current and former, were the top-cited offender. Not all employee security breaches were malicious or intentional, but those that were created significant risk to organizations around the world. This highlights the need for organizations to focus internally to protect sensitive information.

Laura Smarandescu, an assistant professor of marketing, has used psychological methods in prior studies to gain a better understanding of an individual's thought process. She says this study could help businesses determine which employees should have access to sensitive information.

"A questionnaire measuring impulsivity for individuals in critical positions may be one of the screening mechanisms businesses could use," Smarandescu said.

Other studies on human behavior recommend implementing comprehensive policies and procedures, training for employees and clear, swift sanctions against security misconduct to deter future violations. However, in regard to low self-control, traditional training may not cut it, Hu said.

"Training is good, but it may not be as effective as believed. If self-control is part of the brain structure, that means once you've developed certain characteristics, it's very difficult to change," Hu said.

Related stories:

Story Source: Materials provided by Iowa State University. Hu, Qing, West, Robert, and Smarandescu, Laura. The Role of Self-Control in Information Security Violations: Insights from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 31 Number 4 Spring 2014 pp. 6-48

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also ...
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f...
Read more

Children's drawings during abuse investigations

Image
Source:  rutherfordcountytn.gov I llustrations by children can be a critical tool in forensic investigations of child abuse. A recent study compared the results when child abuse victims were offered the opportunity to draw during questioning with results when victims were not offered this opportunity. "The act of drawing was not only an empowering experience for these children," said Dr. Katz. "We also found it to be forensically more effective in eliciting richer testimonies in child abuse cases. We had no idea the gap would be so great between those who drew and those who weren't given this option." A chance to express themselves Some 125 alleged child victims of sexual abuse were randomly selected for the field study. The children, aged 5-14, were questioned by nine well-trained forensic interviewers about a single occurrence of alleged sexual abuse. The children were divided into two sets -- a control group, questioned and allowed to rest during t...
Read more

Unhappy in a relationship? Why do you stay?

Image
Source:   Power of Positivity A story that may effect the development of your romantic comedies.  Why do people stay in unhappy relationships?  Simply put, it's concern for the partner of the unhappy person. This research doesn't offer solutions to this situation, but does help our understanding of why people behave the way they do. NOTE:  Within five minutes this post had 16 hits, the fastest hit rate of any story I've posted.  Might say something of how people feel. Here's the story: *  *  *  *  * When you are unhappy in a relationship, why do you stay?  The answer may surprise you. Study that finds it's not just the investment of time, resources and emotion Why do people stay in unsatisfying romantic relationships? A new study suggests it may be because they view leaving as bad for their partner. The study, being published in the November 2018 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, e...
Read more

M.I.T. Research Explains How Will Rogers Observation Works

Image
Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit requir...
Read more