Tag Archive for Truth Tellers

Comfort and Discomfort In Detecting Deception

by  • March 6, 2013 • 1 Comment

By keeping a "subject" relaxed, we can measure lying more accurately. Instead of creating lying-language through suspicion, we can uncover lying.

By keeping a “subject” relaxed, we can measure lying more accurately. Instead of creating lying-language through suspicion, we can find out which facts create discomfort – it is discomfort body language that helps uncover the truth.

Ex-FBI agent Joe Navarro explain in his book What everybody is saying that nonverbal cues put out by the limbic mind are paramount to detecting deception. He says that it is the displays of comfort versus discomfort that tells body language readers when someone is telling the truth or lying. When people lie they experience discomfort and “guilt knowledge” which leaks through the body through a person’s fear response, but when they tell the truth they “have no worries.” This approach says that a person uses more emphatic gestures with their hands and arms when they tell the truth, but when they lie they tend to freeze up and lock themselves down. If you see half-hazard attempts to describe events using lack of emphasis and gesturing, or in other words, remain uncommitted, than you can be pretty sure their story is fabricated. Truth tellers try their best to set facts straight and will go on at lengths to accomplish this.

The theory says that someone that is guilty carries negative thoughts with them because by nature, people are honest and think that they are good people. When they harbour bad thoughts though, they find it difficult to achieve comfort. The technique to reading lying as outlined states that a person must be read in low stress environments so that it is possible to measure changes from their baseline to catch stress related discomfort. Grilling someone for the truth has been show to produce “false positives”, meaning people who are actually innocent will actually plead guilty. Innocent suspects have been shown to confess to very serious crimes such as murder simply because they were put under very intense pressure. This is why it is important to establish comfort during all interactions, yet use appropriate questions to uncover the truth.

Overlooking someone suspiciously or presenting leading or accusatory questions will create discomfort, however it won’t show you which information presented leads to changes in nonverbal body language. It is by using relaxed and rapport building body language that allows someone to relax leaving only the information or question to be the variable by which all body language is measured. When scientists conduct research they do their best to keep all factors the same except for one. They call this the dependent variable, and it is by definition what is measured, or in other words what is affected during the experiment. The independent variable is what is manipulated in an experiment. When conducting a “lying experiment”, like all experiments, you want to keep all other variables constant so you can measure one variable against another variable.

Therefore, when we want to uncover lies, we should keep our body language neutral and remain calm while working to present information, details, asking for clarification, and so forth to uncover discomfort. This is why torture techniques don’t work to uncover the truth, they just pull information that the suspect believes the interviewer desires so they will stop badgering them. Just by using suspicious body language or leading questions can put someone on edge and influence their nonverbal communication. Saying things like “I don’t believe you” or “I think you are lying” will create anxious body language which can be misconstrued to be the result of actually being dishonest, when in actual fact is likely due to stress from being mislabeled. To body language reader will gain no useful information from creating anxiety. The rule of thumb therefore is to create and maintain comfort at all times, remain neutral in expression and measure signals of discomfort to uncover information that creates stress.

How To Accurately Read Lies

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

By now we know that liars are practiced, we all do it, and we do it regularly. Sometimes we don’t even realize we do it and other times those around us don’t care to know. What we do know is that most liars feel only mild feelings of guilt and fear. Thus, we should only expect very subtle clues to deception and nothing more. It has been shown through the research that looking for full blown signals of lying is both misleading and even unhelpful. Liars as it were, are only slightly more apprehensive than truth tellers with both feeling nervous and anxious when faced with scrutiny.

My advice to read people is to watch for the little stuff, the microexpressions, the small gestures and the ones that happen instantly, and then hone in on it. Keep in mind too, that you won’t be able to detect lies much better than about seventy-five percent of the time anyway, which is on par with the CIA minus of course various lie detection machines which we discussed as being impractical and requiring cooperation that you are very unlikely to garner, even if provided with access.

The top lie detectors all seem to have one trait in common, and that is skepticism. They know or assume that someone is lying so they view them through that window being careful to watch and recall any cues that tip the scales toward deception. Looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses will lead to rose-coloured predictions about people and this is all just dandy, if you aren’t interesting in uncovering bad things around you. You also must be aware of a person, from their face to their toes and be willing to look them over and actively observe them. If you’re goal is to make friends, then by all means avoid filtering and analyzing the body language around you. In fact, I would advise body language readers to relax their skills when around family and friends, or at least keep it secret!

It is not safe to immediately peg someone a liar based on one or even a handful of cues just by the nature of the trade. Reading lying correctly is a long term comparison of the facts seeded with emotional, fearful and stressed body language from one moment to the next that can only happen over time. Success will come by looking at the full picture and comparing the parts to the whole and digging deeper when discrepancies happen between expressive behaviours and the words said. No doubt, lie detection is difficult, but the body language in this chapter coupled with how it is framed, that is the lie detection theory and it’s limitations, will help increase your odds significantly.

Are Truth Tellers Less Cooperative?

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

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.

Remaining Uncommitted

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

When people tell the truth they will usually show extra enthusiasm and commit to their story. Liars often start off the same way, but quickly trail off.

When people tell the truth they will usually show extra enthusiasm and commit to their story. Liars often start off the same way, but quickly trail off.

Liars have been noted to be uncommitted to lies. That is, because they have nothing vested in the lie, they remain less than exuberant in their convictions. In other words, the subconscious mind of liars doesn’t allow them to carry forward with enthusiasm. Instead of smashing a fist against a table and raising a voice saying “I didn’t do it!”, liars will instead make much duller motions and use less commitment to them. It is not as if they want to lie, it is the limbic mind that won’t allow them to.

Liars will motion without emphasis, or describe events by trailing off or use weak statements. They might limit arm and hand movement by clasping them together or locking them down on an armrest with such force they turn their knuckles white. The hands might be put out of sight in pockets or under a table where they can’t be read. Reduced movement can be seen throughout the body, not just in the hands. The entire body including the head, arms, feet, and torso can seem to lock in place. People that are telling the truth spend a lot of time and energy in efforts to make the facts known which comes across in their body language and gesturing. Truth tellers are happy to spend as much time as necessary to get everything right. They will often add more detail than required and go over it again and again if necessary. Not emphasizing is linked to the freeze response where the mind clams the body shut and reduces movement so as to draw less attention to it. What is important in lie detection is to compare cues from a baseline. That is, if someone suddenly drops emphasis then you know they’ve lost interest in the topic or are lying. In either case, it will have provided useful information to the body language reader.

In writing this passage, I had just reviewed a video (see bottom posted on the web of a baseball game in which a player leaped head-over-feet clear over the catcher as he came to homeplate to score a run. The catcher, stuck in a fear response, failed to tag the runner. Baseball has an interesting tradition where it is customary for the runner to body-check the catcher at homeplate as he tries to tag for an out. While the catcher braced and ducked with his elbow up to make the tag, the runner jumped over the catcher landing on home plate. The catcher stuck with his elbow up in defense could only convince his mind to bring his arm just close enough to miss the tag! Because his mind feared the body check, he wasn’t able to follow through with what he intended. While this is an interesting fear based response what follows is even more interesting since it helps us read liars. The catcher, realizing he failed to get the out, quickly turns to pursue the runner. One must ask why he would track the runner down if he made the tag? Obviously he hadn’t! But more important that this, is that we know that he knows that he didn’t make the tag! This means that any nonverbal language following the lack of tag, should he dispute it, is read as lying language. To state his case, the catcher chats with the umpire by raising his arms showing how he made the tag. What is revealing, however, is that the catcher only slightly raises his arms instead of doing it with emphasis. Instead of showing the gesture over and over again, the catcher just raises his arms once as if to make a casual rainbow motion with his arms. When his coach shows up with arms flaying and talking with enthusiasm, the catcher quietly exits! The catcher knows that he can’t make a case and so doesn’t put any effort into trying. The difference between the coach and the catcher, is that the catcher knows he’s lying, while the coach isn’t sure. Once more, the coach isn’t actually lying anyway, since he wasn’t there to feel the contact or lack thereof of the catchers mitt and the runner, he’s just acting out an inherent bias – he’s playing the role he was hired to do. Lack of commitment is an important cue to watch for when detecting lies so be careful to watch for it.

Lying Is Hard Work?

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Is she constructing a lie or trying to recall the facts?

Is she constructing a lie or trying to recall the facts?

Some researchers argue that deceptive messages requires more mental processing because one needs to create facts instead of simply recalling and describing them. In truth tellers emotion flows effortlessly, but those who are faking it, have to foster theirs and while liars are playing a role, truth tellers are just living. With an increase in pressure, such as one might experience during cross-examination in law proceedings, liars might be faced with an unexpected question catching them off guard. Pathological liars are constantly having to mentally catalog their lies and then entwine them with lies told previously which is confusing. This makes liars who are caught off guard more likely to delay responding and increase pauses as they attempt to create information while simultaneously comparing it to information otherwise presented. They must also compare information to possible information already known to the listener. It has been said that for every one lie originated, two to three other lies must be created to back it up. This can become mentally taxing and is a process not required of truth tellers. While pauses in speech are not definitive cues to deception by itself, since remembering the truth is sometimes difficult as well, pausing, when it is obvious that the answer should be known, can serve to betray a liar.

Thus, we can expect that when someone is caught with difficult questions that they should exhibit more nonverbal leakage and might even ‘appear’ to be thinking harder. Some researchers therefore have linked avoiding eye contact, or looking away to think as a signal of mental processing and lying. However, as we have seen, looking away sometimes helps us recall real to life events so this, in and of itself, is not an indication of lying. Using eye direction was outlined in an earlier section, but it’s important to note that baselining must first be accomplished for this to be anywhere near accurate. Right and left handed persons will look in different direction depending on whether they are creating information or recalling it.

A way liars use to reduce the work to carry out lies is to prepare the details in advance. In this condition we should expect more eye contact, gestures and overall movement because less stress is put on the mind, and so the body should appear more relaxed. When a liar is not afforded the time to prepare to tell a lie their movement should be less fluid and their behaviour should exhibit changes in frequencies especially nervousness. Liars that prepare their lies in advance will have fewer inconsistencies in their stories, but might appear overly rehearsed whereas liars that can’t prepare will seem to be over thinking. Thus when truth telling, there should be an inherent fluidity about the conversation. Other research tells us that liars are less forthcoming than truth tellers and tell less compelling tales. The stories they tell also have fewer ordinary imperfections and unusual contents.

Duping Delight, Eye Contact And Smiling

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Unlike this fella, good liars often appear very charismatic and this trait helps carry them through their lies.

Unlike this fella, good liars often appear very charismatic and this trait helps carry them through their lies.

Paul Ekman coined the term “duping delight” to explain possible reasons for an increase in certain cues while lying was taking place. For example, fear and guilt associated with lying should decrease nonverbal cues such as eye contact and smiles, but the research shows us that eye contact usually increases during lying. Ironically, it is the reverse that is commonly thought of by the general public to be true. That is, most people think that eye contact decreases during lying. Two possible explanations exist for an increase in eye contact and smiling. One is that smiling happens more often because the liar is experiencing pleasure with the act of lying which has been extensively proven through research on psychopaths, con-men and pathological liars, the second says that a smile is in fact due to stress and embarrassment which causes a stress smile. An increase in eye contact is also explained in terms of a desire to measure the efficacy of the lie. The liar holds eye contact to watch for signals of disbelief in his counterpart to allow him to calibrate his tactics accordingly. So by this reason, the liar holds eye contact more than truth tellers in order to gauge how well his lie is being pulled over on his victim and to revel in joy as his ploy washes over his victim.

Duping delight means that nearly any signal can be used during a lie to convey honesty, and the greater the pleasure felt by the liar, the more relaxed and honest they will appear. The converse can happen too, the duper can appear more excited and happy throwing a wrench in this signal as universal amongst liars. Signals of duping delight can include higher voice pitch, faster and louder speech, increases in nodding and smiles, and use of more illustrators. Also, the more a lie is being perceived as true, the stronger these signals will be since the excitement of the liar increases in tow. Thus, just because some signals are present, does not necessarily mean that at lie is either present or absent. Although the willful modification of our natural traits often make us appear more or less sincere. For example, a perpetual feigning of friendliness comes across as phony. Incidentally, things like voice pitch, which can be difficult to control amongst all other factors when lying, might go unusually high through anxiousness when the true intent was to appear enthusiastic. It is the difference between a normal interaction and one that is unusually energetic that gives the dupers away.

Faking Body Language And Microexpressions

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

Is body language a “learnable skill” and can it therefore be faked? The answer is yes and no. The vast majority of the more prevalent body language can be learned. For example, keeping your hands out of your pockets or using the hands expressively to remain honest and open, or keeping the hands away from the face to come off as more confident as easily learned through conscious thought and repetition. However, a new area of study reveals that there is a whole new set of cues that are much more difficult to control, if not impossible.

A furrowed forehead can happen in a split second and reveal negative emotions.

A furrowed forehead can happen in a split second and reveal negative emotions.

These are called microexpressions or microsignals. These signals can be used to decipher liars from truth tellers. Microexpressions appear as furrows, smirks, frowns, smiles and wrinkles and can offer an accurate, though fleeting, window into emotions. These microexpressions are controlled by muscles such as the fontalis, corregator and risorius and they are provoked by underlying emotions that are nearly impossible to control consciously. One of these emotions is the fake smile to show appeasement in lieu of genuine joy or happiness. The fake smile is obvious, as will see later, because the lips are pulled across the mouth, but the muscles controlling the eyes, play no part.

With specialized computer software, researchers have been able to detect these signals. Computers were employed because the signals flash across the face in fractions of seconds making it hard for humans to pick the signals up consciously. Slowing down video on high speed video cameras and playing it back repeatedly to observers can also be used to detect the expressions. So part of the story is that microexpressions are difficult to detect and control but the rest of the story tells us that if they exist (and they do), that we must at some level have evolved the ability to read and detect them. Therefore, we must be cautious about assuming that just because they happen so fast, that they can’t be picked up and conversely that we can easily fake our way through the nonverbal channel. It just might be that the subconscious intuition is hard at work giving us that sixth sense feeling that can’t trust someone despite not quite being able to put to words. The reason, it seems, is a combination of microexpressions and our intuition.

Some researchers will tell us that the face is the easiest part of our bodies to control, but this isn’t entirely true and is a poor excuse for the full story. If our faces were so easily controlled, why have botox treatments to freeze up our faces with low level toxins in order to erase wrinkles? Why not just stop using the muscles altogether and therefore avoid suffering from facial wrinkles during the aging process? The simple answer is that it’s not the simple. While our faces are in fact under a large part under our control, we can’t always be focused on it, lest we not be able to focus on anything else. Not the least of which is controlling our speech. Can you imagine what it would be like to construct sentences free-form while trying to remain expressive but at the same time avoid contracting “inappropriate” facial muscles (whatever they might be)? When we talk or see, or do, our faces naturally respond to what is going on around us because they are closely tied to our mind and our emotions. It is a cause and effect relationship, or even an arms race, and it precisely because the face provides such a vast amount of information, that we are so tuned into reading it.

Other ways to spot a fake is with regards to incongruent body language. That is, language that is inconsistent with either, the words being spoken, and the nonverbal language that accompanies it. Women are particularly adept at reading the whole picture since they are naturally more perceptive, can usually pick up on the subtleties in others more quickly then men and have been shown by research to be able to perform multiples tasks at once. To women, something just won’t seem right, their sense will “tingle.” We call this the “female intuition”, but thankfully, with practice men can develop their skills just as readily and that is what this book is all about.