Field: MOTIVATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY | FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
ANATOMY OF SELF-DETERMINED MOTIVATION OR DURESS IN FALSE ACCUSATIONS
PROBLEM DEFINITION: An accusation is deemed false or fabricated due to the lack of causal linkage between the action (or inaction) of the accused and damage reportedly sustained, perceived, or predicted by the accuser - either maliciously or disorderly. According to published sources conferring level IA-IB evidence, in the United States, 83-99% of false accusations go unpunished, while burdening law enforcement by investigative budget and time wastage, diverting personnel away from actual crime investigation, straining taxpayer-funded work hours.
AIM: (1) To elucidate confounder-free determinants that motivated or coerced the false accusers in 100+ unsubstantiated criminal complaints retracted from the state or county police records, and their measurable impact on the investigative budget and time wastage; (2) To develop a result-based advocacy tool that will help the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) adjust the AO91 Form, and the state Bureaus of Investigation (BI), Departments of Public Safety (DPS) and Crime Information Centers (CIC) revisit SP-163, DC-311, SC-10, AO245B forms to tighten the penalties for willful or disorderly criminal complaints intended to achieve malicious satisfaction from a target's downfall.
METHOD: In a retrospective cohort study on a representative sample, instruments such as Benign & Malicious Envy Scale (BeMaS), Blame Intensity Inventory (BII), Short Dark Triad (SD3), Questionnaire of Motives for Lying (CEMA-A), Malevolent Creativity Behavioral Scale (MCBS), Rorschach Scale (RS) will be employed to assess the false accusers' malicious motivations, propensity to blame, Machiavellianism, malevolent creativity, narcissism, callous personality traits. The complaint elements (stalling tactics, pronoun distancing, upward inflections, redundancy, contradictions, irregularities, excessive details, false witnesses) will be coded and exposed as independent variables in a non-linear function towards the measurable outcomes (social cost). Only the provable environmental factors will be assessed as confounders. Data analysis will follow the Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt functions for iterative optimization and solving least squares problems. The social cost of the false accusation will be measured by algebraic expression adapted from M.J. White (1993), C(x) + C(y) + D1(x, y) + D2(x, y), to distern between comparative C(x) + λ(x)s(x)D ￣ (x2) + [1 − μr(x)]D ￣ (x1) and contributory C(x) + λ (x)s (y)D ￣ (x2) + [1 − μ (x)r(x)]D ￣ (x1) negligence, to scale the injury or damage (y) from the false accuser's negligence (x).
ETHICS & POLICY: The study will not involve human, animal, or plant subjects, nor will it harvest, transport, or dispose of human or animal organs, tissues, or bodily fluids. It will refrain from inadvertent disclosures. An Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval will be sought solely for adhering to ethics standards while obtaining published information from the databases of adjudicated and closed criminal cases.
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING: Concurrently, an AAFP Beth & Charlie Clark Service Award as well as FSF funding are sought.
