Tag Archive for Police Officers

Are Truth Tellers Less Cooperative?

The most influential manual regarding suspect interviewing was written by Fred Inbau, Reid and Buckley in 2001 “Criminal interrogation and confession” and is the handbook used by police officers in training. The “Reid nine steps” claims that after being accused of having committed a crime, those under investigation who are innocent will tend to be more cooperative than deceptive when compared to guilty suspects. The theory says that honest suspects will cooperate and work harder to show their innocence, whereas the guilty will appear less cooperative, and so appear less convincing.

Inbau provides a few examples. He says that suspects who are guilty will want to exit the interview as quickly as possible. They will say things like “Well, I figured you wouldn’t believe me. It’s been nice talking to you but I have an attorney to see.” On the other hand, suspects who are innocent will not want to exit the interview room after being falsely accused so they will insist on remaining as long as possible to present the truth to the investigator. In fact, the manual states that innocent suspects, will remain until they have had the opportunity to present enough information to eliminate themselves as a suspect.

The argument of cooperation does seem plausible and some studies do support the argument, however others do not. One such study by Aldert Vrij of the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom in 2005 showed that there was no relationship between cooperation and guilt. He found that suspects who were shy tended to cooperate less despite their guilt or innocence. Therefore by Inbau’s logic would be falsely labeled as guilty. At issue here are many factors and ones that need to be considered before anyone can be labeled as a liar or otherwise. Deceivers are just as likely to be concerned with the impressions they make as non-deceivers so this is non-issue. However, the context does come across as a big factor.

For example, a criminal at a boarder crossing who is moving drugs with a suitcase would obviously be unwilling to cooperate by opening his bag so as to delay being caught, but so too might someone holding particularly private or personal items. Lest we not forget about a human rights activist who’s occupation involves protecting the freedoms of people. The activists will be just as unlikely to cooperate with law enforcement since his goals are best served by drawing attention to the injustices around him. What better way to make a point about global big brother than to become a victim yourself. Liars on the other hand might try harder to appear more honest by cooperating, or show that they have nothing to fear, and even appeal to discrimination and unjustness of the process. In the case of the honest suspect, they aren’t concerned about the impression they make on others, so can also appear less cooperative, even combative. Thus, cooperation, in and of itself, does not lead necessarily indicate deception, but on the surface, has some merit.

Introduction – Chapter 16

He does not answer questions, or gives evasive answers; he speaks nonsense, rubs the
great toe along the ground; and shivers; his face is discolored; he rubs the roots of his
hair with his fingers.
—Description of a liar, 900 B.C.

Touching the nose has long been use as a 'tell' when detecting lies.  However, is lying just that easy to spot?

Touching the nose has long been use as a ‘tell’ when detecting lies. However, is lying just that easy to spot?

I’ve been putting off writing this chapter for some time and not for reasons of laziness. In fact, I have research the topic to death. The problem with lying related body language is that it’s not where it needs to be in order to be useful to the vast majority of people. What research on lie detection, and there is plenty, tells us, is that there is no definitive traits that give up all liars. Most of the cues are either anecdotal or happen some of the time, but not all of the time. Other studies tell us that so called experts, that is, police officers, interrogators, customs inspectors, federal law enforcement, federal polygraphers, robbery investigators, judges, parole officers and psychiatrists fair only at slightly above the fifty percent success rate. In fact, the average is somewhere around thirty-seven to seventy percent. It doesn’t take a mathematician to realize that someone flipping a coin is just as skilled at coming up with the correct answers as any one of the ‘experts’. Other research tells us that higher order interrogators aren’t able to pass on their intuitive abilities to others, telling us that they can’t quantify their observations. If they can’t pass it on to laypersons, than it’s of no practical purpose for me to pass it on either. Other times programs specifically designed and sold to improve detection of deception have failed miserably and have even lead to the detriment, rather than improvement of performance.

Several cues have been attributed to detecting lies. They generally fit into two broad classes. The first is nonverbal visual cues such as facial expressions, eye blinking, eye contact or gaze aversion, head movements, pupil dilation, nodding, smiling, hand movements or gestures, foot and leg movements and postural shifts. The second includes paraverbal cues including pitch, pauses, or speech errors. We will get into these cues in the following pages.

There are other ways that scientists use to detect lies and these involve machines. The most common is the polygraph or lie detector machine. The polygraph relies on changes in heart rate, blood pressure and increases in perspiration or respiration. However, these cues are of practically no use to us because they are difficult, although not impossible to see. For example, an increase in heart rate can be seen if one looks closely at the carotid artery that runs along the neck, and an increase in sweating does become apparent with an increase in scratching of the palms. Further to this, the polygraph has a poor track record and most experts agree that they have severe limitations and their accuracy is known to be inconsistent. As well will see, one facet of lie detection involves the reading of nervousness, but practiced pathological liars are skilled at eliminating nervousness, some even thrive on it thereby reducing the propensity of visible and invisible cues.

Notwithstanding the myriad of hard fast research on lie detection, it is still a widespread belief in the population that nonverbal behaviours betray a liar. Worldwide, cross-cultural comparison has shown a universally held belief that liars are spotted through their bodies. Police training packages will often include nonverbal and paraverbal behaviours as part of the ways in which deception can be detected. A study by Lucy Akehurst of the University of Portsmouth found that when asked which behaviours they thought would be consistent with lying, both police officers and regular lay people agreed. There was no difference between what the experts thought betrayed a liar and what regular people thought. They also agreed that these behavioural changes would occur more frequently in others as they lied, than in themselves. This finding is replicated in other studies as well. For example, police officers and students agreed on which behaviours were consistent with lying and they also thought that they themselves would display these cues less during lying. The research therefore is inconsistent with the nature of lying. It can not happen both ways, and it seems that our attitudes about lying and lie detection are skewed.

Judgments of deception are heavily correlated with long held stereotypes. Person’s that display behaviours associated with lying are often judged as deceptive even though they may be telling the truth. Study after study shows that roughly only fifty percent of the time liars give themselves away, the remaining time, liars are passed off as truth tellers and truth tellers as liars. Pegging liars based on body language alone or some other mystical cue is a dangerous assumption. It can lead to marital break-ups such as if a spouse falsely labels her husband as a cheater, can put innocent people in jail, can lead to the firing of employees on suspicion of theft and so forth. Yet with this huge propensity for error and consequence, we still, by in large, believe that we can read people on this trait. What shouldn’t surprise us are the rewards achievable through lying and cheating. Lying can avoid punishment, save us from hardships, but perhaps more importantly can help protect those around us and their feelings. The question “Does this dress make me look fat?” does not necessitate an honest answer, and in so doing, everyone is much happier!

Teachers, principles, lay persons and even intellectuals have been shown to all think similarly in terms of lie detection, and the body language associated (even if incorrect). Thus to avoid being detected, or mislabeled a liar (which is worse), we should still avoid displaying stereotypical lying body language that will serve to give us away. At this point, you should understand my reasoning for presenting this chapter even if only to slightly help us catch liars. While lying body language may be of some help in catching a liar, it will help avoid making us appear as though we are lying in the eyes of those around us. As the studies on beliefs about deception have indicated, there seems to be worldwide agreement on what constitute cues to deception in others. Therefore, it is these behaviours one should avoid so as not to appear dishonest. I will add too, that lie detection is not impossible, certain individuals do fair better than chance alone when detecting lies. However it is with caution that I present this chapter because as of yet, it is difficult to pin down exactly which cues are used and which cues happen across all people. Some cues mean deception some of the time, while other times they are simply related to emotional arousal and stress which can be due to being portrayed inaccurately as a liar, or in response to the punishment that might be forthcoming. Sometimes it is the worry about being “under the gun” that causes the stress and therefore the behaviour, and not because of any concern about the telling of a lie. While this chapter provides cues to emotionality related to lying, it will be up to the reader of the language to determine the source, be it actual lying or emotions related to being caught.

Dominance By Setting And Breaking Social Rules

Rules are always created by, and then in turn, broken by dominant individuals! Dominant individuals are the rule makers, not the rule followers. It’s sad but true, that police officers enjoy greater luxuries than regular citizens. Just ask any policemen what they do if the get pulled over for speeding. Do you really think they get a ticket? I won’t get into absolutes here, but I do personally know two officers who have explained to me that a flash of the badge gets them off every time. I would expect this to be the norm, not the exception, but there is no empirical way to be certain.

This sort of logic all starts at home, as parents make and break their own rules routinely. Is it any surprise that whinny children have whinny parents? Even small children can readily pick-out these injustices, but since they are still highly dependent on their parents to feed, house and cloth them, they, put up only a small amount of resistance. As children reach their teenage years, these inconsistencies are tolerated less and less by them as they tend to set their own course. They are separating themselves from their parents and taking on their own dominance characteristics, naturally, controlling inconsistent parents see this as disrespect.

This isn’t unlike what happens when dominant people meet as adults. Dominant people will often interrupt others or speak over them, casually swear in the wrong company and generally act inappropriately without fear of consequence. Dominance can also take the form of belittling and criticizing others, and holding thoughts such as “I’m more important then you”. It can also include ridiculing others and their possessions, such as their cars or occupations.

Touching also has rules which can be broken in order to set others in their place. A pat on the back can be disingenuous when used in certain context, whereas a light punch on the shoulder can be uplifting to a buddy. Punching can be annoying if done repeatedly to exercise control. There is a pretty clear line between being dominant in a good way versus being belligerent.

Put-Down Humour

Even when we laugh at the expense of others and their misfortunes we create togetherness and solidarity. Putdown humour is any humour that derives amusement at the expense of others. It can be demeaning jokes, teasing, sarcasm or even self-deprecating remarks. While putdowns can be effective to build bonds and friendship there exists certain rules of engagement. For example, a putdown must be within a friendly framework and we must follow certain agreed upon rules. Taking putdown humour too far can be hurtful, and particularly harsh putdowns can be used to elevate ourselves at the target’s expense, or equally, we too we can become victim of putdowns. For example, in a study by Susan Martin in 1978 out of American University it was shown that police officers who use putdown humour against female officers tended to use it because they felt uncomfortable with the notion of having females in a male dominated workplace. However, humour among, say men at a weekly poker night can foster belonging. Overall, men will use putdown humour more often than women and also tend to expect it. Practical jokes work similarly, and sporting teams frequently use pranks to welcome new members.

The real key is to avoid hitting on truisms about a person that can be hurtful. Making fun of someone for being ugly when in fact it is well known that they are confident beauty pageant winner or making fun of a sprinter for being slow, is in good fun, and will be well received. However, poking fun at someone who is rigid or uptight, by including this trait in a joke, it is sure to offend them and while it might have a leveling effect between two people, it serves no unifying characteristics. In fact, the only result likely is to outline key differences between people and help others see this disagreement making everyone involved look bad. Harsh putdowns only serve to disassociate a person from others.

Dr. Terrion of the University of Ottawa who followed a group of police officers through training found that the development of putdowns followed a rough pattern of progression from putting down oneself, to putdowns of shared identities or groups, to putdowns of external groups and finally to putdowns of each other within a group. She also found that officers tended to putdown members of the group that had higher status, and members tended to poke the most fun at others whom they liked most and that using putdowns when members were absent was seen as backstabbing so was frowned upon. One of the cardinal rules of putdown humour, is to only poke fun at people who are present. The study also showed that members that are willing to laugh at themselves tended to be taken into the group more readily. Laughing at oneself shows others that we see ourselves as equals and shows that we can be trusted. Another general putdown rule follows that members that don’t take well to putdowns shouldn’t be targets because it tends to elicit an uncomfortable feeling within the rest of the group.

Putdown humour, when it is framed properly, indicates belongingness and also a desire by others to welcome someone in given that all the rules are properly followed. Conversely, a lack of inclusion into humour, even putdowns, can alienate us just as much as particularly negative humour. The next time someone pokes fun, roll with it and either laugh heartily or joke back, as humour can help break down boundaries and create inclusiveness.