Tag Archive for Aversion

Police As Lie Detectors

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

In a 2004 study out of the University of Portsmouth by Samantha Mann, Aldert Vrij and Ray Bull it was found that police officers were sixty-five percent accurate in detecting lies when they watched the proceedings of an interrogation. This success rate is significantly higher than that which could arise by chance alone and also shows that familiarity with the subjects can have a role in increasing accuracy. Most research thus far has used college students, but this shows that police who frequently deal with suspects might have an advantage reading them over reading others. By a similarly notion, this advantage would theoretically be non-existent for police officers in a business meeting or with regard to a salesperson on a car lot, unless they had particular experience with such matters. This study does tell us that familiarity with the subject and the context can help us in detecting lies.

Police manuals give the impression that officers who interview suspects often, are good lie detectors, despite of course the vast research that says otherwise. When the researchers qualified their observations however, they found some surprising findings. Officers who named visual cues such as those mentioned in Inbau’s research, mentioned previously, which forms part of the manual on lie detection for police, such as gaze aversion, unnatural changes in posture, self touching, mouth and eye covering were less likely to be accurate in reading others. In fact, these cues proved counterproductive. Specifically, female participants who claimed to use Inbau’s cues most often where poorer at detecting truths, than the males who did not. In particular, gaze aversion was unhelpful and in fact distracting when analyzing for truth. So despite the moderate success of officers at detecting lies, there still remains severe shortcomings because it was not necessarily due to observations of body language or other anything else that could be described, catalogued, and hence put to use. If an inherent skill amounts to a sixty-five percent success, but one can’t describe that skill in a way that makes it useful to other people, then it simply appears like a hunch. Hunches are not reliable, nor do they meet the scientific principle of reproducibility or have predictive (useful) qualities.

Introduction – Chapter 16

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

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.

Summary – Chapter 7

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

In this chapter we looked at how open body positions indicate an open or closed mind. Specifically, we saw that that by having arms and legs that cross the midpoint of the body we indicate a closed mind, negative attitude or disposition, and conversely, that open postures indicate an open mind. This is evident most often through what is called “ventral displays” where the chest and front is exposed. We saw that the hands can convey honesty by showing that “no weapon is present”, that rubbing the hands is figuratively a preparation to receive something (or that we’re cold), and that sudden changes in the hands has real meaning, that pointing is rude and as if throwing a spear, but can and are blocked, by arm crossing which works as a shield.

Next, we examined techniques to open people when they show closed body positions in an attempt to close the “closed”, the meaning of leg crossing and how spreading means dominance, and how the ankle cross indicates a negative, but hidden emotion. The figure-four-leg-position, we found, happens by pulling one leg over the other knee and represents disagreement, the fig leaf is a shameful posture since it hides the genitals from view, and parallel legs which happens by pressed one leg against the other making the legs appear sexier and more youthful. Next we looked at pigeons toes or “tibial torsion”, a submissive body posture indicating meekness, then how the legs tell where the mind thinks through pointing and the four main ways a person might stand; straight up and feet together (attentive), feet apart (a crotch display), one foot forward (shows direction of interest) and legs crossed at the ankle (a submissive posture). We then examined the progression from closed to open as a sequence when meeting new people or being in novel situations, how eye aversion or avoidance can indicate a lack of receptiveness, that the fetal position can be abbreviated by simply pulling limbs to the center of the body and finally how openness is related to status.

Why Sometimes Eye Contact Is Bad

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

A 2006 study by Stirling University psychologists found that children who were instructed to avoid eye contact while considering their response to a question had a seventy-two percent chance of answering correctly but only a fifty percent chance of answered correctly when they had not been told to look away. One of the theories advanced to explain this finding suggests that looking at human faces, which are complex and information rich, requires a lot of mental processing and that this might disrupt thinking. So next time you want a child (or anyone) to provide a correct answer, instead of forcing them to be polite and maintain eye contact, allow them the freedom to cast their gaze wherever it might fall so they can better process the information. The research shows that children were justified all along by avoiding eye contact when posed difficult questions.

Eye aversion during complex thought is just one example of why sometimes eye contact is bad. Another says that eye aversion controls hierarchy and many species of animals have evolved eye aversion as a function of appeasement gestures. Primates will use direct stares as part of their threat display which is a precursor to direct physical aggression. Averting the eyes altogether or looking down and away with brief glances in the direction of the aggressor can serve to eliminate an attack response. Eye aversion to reduce physical violence is to the benefit of both parties because it eliminates the chances of serious injury or even death. In most cases the aggressor, having received the signal that he is higher in the ranks, will stop in its tracks and turn away.

Eye aversion is a form of submission and submission is usually all that is desired from most attackers. Simply put, violence is often the byproduct of two individuals who refuse to heed each other’s dominance displays, and of which are naturally fairly evenly matched. When dominance displays include things like strutting, stretching, false charges, chest pounding and so forth can not definitively crown a winner, then the conflict is settled by physical contest. Obviously, the last description could apply to any one species of animals, but it could also apply to people. When neither person backs down, a fight ensues.

Children who avoid eye contact can also avoid being physically abused by other students, although it does nothing to eliminate the problem altogether. It has been said that the only true way to settle a bully down is to give them a bit of their own medicine. Bullies are always trying to pick easy fights to build up their dominance and so tend not to want to fight as much as one would be lead to think. Eye contact between humans and non-humans is also well documented. For example, young children who haven’t yet learned to avoid eye contact with dogs, tend to be attacked more often as the dog perceives the child as an aggressor. By most accounts it is recommended that people avoid direct eye contact when confronted by bears to avoid hostile encounters. Avoiding eye contact switches off the threat response and tells the bear that you do not wish to end the dispute with a physical contest.

In most animal species unwavering gaze is used to display dominance and aggression when it happens between members of the same species. When it happens across species it indicates that a prey has been centered out and the stalk has begun. Looking away and avoiding eye contact is a submissive cue and the least dominant is usually the first one to look away. Knowing this, you can easily test out your own dominance. Just pick a victim and stare directly into their eyes for an extended period of time. Whoever breaks first admits to lower rank. You will see that direct and piercing eye contact lasting any longer than five seconds will create an intense desire to look away. If you find it difficult to stare someone down like this then look at the area just above the eyes, as if the person had a third eye. While we know we aren’t making eye contact, the victim won’t realize the difference. Staring will evoke stress, they will feel prey-like and under attack. Keeping the eyes unblinking or even narrowing them is akin to a predator-prey interaction which will make the dominance display even more powerful. However you decide to experiment, do so at your own risk!