Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

The Latest Science about Behavioral Indicators of Deception

A Message for Professional Interviewers, Investigators, Therapists, and Negotiators

I wanted to let our Humintell community know of a recent paper that was published in a top-tier, scientific journal on behavioral indicators of deception.

In the scientific community, there have been debates about whether behavior can reliably differentiate truths from lies, and if so, which ones.

Fortunately, many studies published in the last two decades have demonstrated that nonverbal behavior (NVB) can differentiate truth-tellers and liars fairly well.

One reason for the emergence of the wealth of these findings is that these studies have examined situations in which people are actually interviewed about meaningful events and where there’s consequences for not being believed.

These are precisely the types of situations in which professionals – investigators, therapists, counselors, negotiators – work and need to make the best evaluations they can possibly make.

In the remainder of this article, I summarize three main take-aways of the latest paper, and interested readers can read the paper here.

1. Professionals should focus on clusters of NVB produced in multiple channels of behavior

Across the face, voice, hands, and whole body. Examining clusters makes more sense than examining only single behavior because NVB are part of a total communication package that occurs across multiple channels, with and without words.

Four facts support this suggestion:

  1. Human bodies are wired to connect our thoughts, feelings, and behavior (think embodied cognition)
  2. Our thoughts and feelings are blended at any one time and across time
  3. We verbalize only a portion of what’s in our heads at any one time
  4. Different mental states (cognitions, emotions, etc.) map onto different NVB channels (face, voice, gesture, etc.)

2. Professionals should focus on behavioral indicators that have been validated in science and vetted in the field.

Our Humintell community knows that certain NVB have been scientifically validated as deception indicators while others have not.

On one hand, facial expressions of emotion and microexpressions, some types of gestures, fidgeting (in some contexts), and some aspects of voice differentiate truth-tellers from liars.

On the other hand, looking away when answering questions (gaze aversion) has not been scientifically validated as a deception cue. Astute professionals will know not to believe everything about NVB that they may hear or read about.

3. NVB are also important indicators of many other mental states that can be helpful for interviewers.

Our Humintell community also knows that NVB can signal many different mental states, all of which can be useful to professionals as landmarks of meaningful topics and themes.

These include specific, discrete emotions such as anger, disgust, or fear; general affective states such as open or closed, relaxed or tense; specific verbal words or phrases; cognitive processes, confusion, concentration; and others.

Identifying these behaviors can give professionals additional insights to people’s mindsets.

Experienced professionals all develop their own customized interview strategies and tactics. The accurate and reliable observation and classification of NVB can be a crucial aid, and focusing on NVB clusters that have been validated in science and vetted in field work is key.

Equally important is to ignore NVB that have not been validated. By knowing which behaviors have been validated and vetted and which not, professionals can become more efficient by distinguishing meaningful signals from noise in the behavioral mess that occurs in interviews.

Here at Humintell, we base all our trainings on behavioral indicators of mental states that have been validated in science and vetted in the field by practitioners. Thus, please rest assured that we practice what we preach.

 

The post The Latest Science about Behavioral Indicators of Deception first appeared on Humintell.

Podcast Episode: What Are Some Myths About Deception?

lying-deceit-deceptionWhat are some myths about deception? What are good deception detection techniques? How can auditors build more trust?

Dr. David Matsumoto, a renowned expert in the field of microexpressions, gestures, nonverbal behavior, culture, and emotion recently appeared on the Audit 15 Fun Podcast with Jon Taber to answer these questions and more.

Myths about Deception Detection

Dr. Matsumoto emphasizes there are many myths surrounding deception detection that have not been validated by science or vetted in the field.

Here are a couple myths:

1. There is one behavior that is always indicative of deception.

For example- liars scratch their nose or they look away. This has never been validated by science or vetted in the field in a consistent way.

2. Liars look away when talking or answering a question.

This hypothesis has been tested in many studies around the world and is almost never have been found to be true. Interestingly there is also data that liars know this misconception exists and will therefore look at the interviewer more when being questioned.

Is Deception Necessary?

Detecting deception is difficult and Dr. Matsumoto believes humans are wired to not know what people are truly thinking and feeling.

Societies have required some degree of blindness to what others are think and feel and that blindness is necessary for human societies to function.

He emphasizes that if we knew what others were thinking and feeling all the time, nothing would work; work organizations wouldn’t exist, recreational organizations would not exist, marriage would not exist.

Dr. Matsumoto believes that humans are wired to have a truth bias. In fact, there’s a lot of data that demonstrates when people are making determinations of veracity or deception there is a truth bias in those judgements.

However, there are people who are in professions (such as law enforcement officers) who we would want to be better at detecting deception than the average person.

Validated Deception Cues

Deception cues do exist verbally and non-verbally. Verbally, they can be in different ways: inconsistencies in speech, certain adverb usage or going off on extraneous tangents. Non-verbally the cues can occur in the face, body, voice, gestures, and body posture.

Helpful Deception Detection Tips

  1. Know that deception cues occur multi-modally across multiple channels and they’re not fixed.
  2. Get trained on validated indicators (both verbal and non-verbal).
  3. Practice active observation. Observing is just as important as active listening.
  4. Prepare for the interview! Get all the facts lined up and strategize your approach.

How to Build Perceived Trustworthiness

Dr. Matsumoto believes that any interviewer needs to build what he called “perceived trustworthiness” in the other person. In other words, you want the interviewee to perceive you as trustworthy.

How to do that?

  • Have an attitude of being authentic and genuine.
  • Engage in respectful behaviors; respect the person’s time, space, boundaries, boundaries of what they want to talk about.
  • Navigate the “trial balloons of trust” they will give you and express non-judgmental listening.

Listen to the 15 entire minute interview below

The post Podcast Episode: What Are Some Myths About Deception? first appeared on Humintell.

Analyzing Alex Murdaugh’s Body Language

Alex Murdaugh's Body LanguageThe Alex Murdaugh trial has garnered much attention in recent days, and for good reason: a public figure with a lot of money is tried and convicted of a vicious crime. As with many criminal trials in popular culture, the demeanor of the defendant has received a lot of attention.

In this brief blog, I’d like to discuss a little bit about how reading people and the analysis of body language can help get greater insights into the minds of others. At the same time, I’d like to discuss some of the trials and tribulations of doing so without a solid empirical and experiential basis.

First of all, we should acknowledge the context within which we are observing behavior, which is a trial of a public figure that is being televised. In such a trial, questions and responses are often practiced and polished before they are raised in the court.

Oftentimes the questions that are asked are fixed and those asking questions don’t have the freedom or the luxury to go wherever they want to, as in a free-flowing investigative interview.

The astute observer should realize that reading behavioral indicators of mental states is clouded by such circumstances. That is very different than a spontaneous investigative interview conducted behind closed doors outside of public and television view.

“Anywhere, Anytime”

Many people have commented on the defendant’s verbal answer that he did not kill his wife and son “anywhere, anytime.” (see 0:19 in the video above)

Certainly the use of such language raises doubt about the veracity of that statement because those adverbs seem to make it appear that the suspect is trying to convince the questioner (or the jury) of the denial.

Yet, one has to temper such interpretations because the suspect was asked whether he killed members of his family several times prior, and one of those times the attorney asking the question (in this case, the defense attorney) actually used those very same words.

Thus, when Murdaugh said those same words, it was difficult to know whether those words came spontaneously from his head or was given to him by the person asking the question. The response was contaminated by the way in which the questions up to that point were asked.

Murdaugh Head Nods

When Alex Murdaugh was asked if he killed his family, he says “No, I did not,” while nodding his head up and down.

In that same response, Murdaugh nodded his head several times when making the denial. Many people will be quick to suggest that that head nod was clearly contrary to the denial, using the head nod as a sign of deception (nodding yes while denying).

But hold on; Murdaugh nods his head almost continuously at times, even when not being asked a question or even speaking. That behavior may be a residual effect of a drug addiction.

Yes, although he is likely clean during this testimony, such behavioral effects (e.g., tremors, fidgeting, twitching, tics, etc.) can continue in individuals who have been afflicted with drugs even when they are clean. Thus, jumping on such single instances of behavior and drawing definitive conclusions is difficult and should be done with caution.

Compounding this issue is that head nods are also used to illustrate or animate speech, and not just as signs of verbal “yes” or agreement. Could Murdaugh have been nodding when denying as an emphasis of his denial rather than a contradiction?

This is the differential that I believe a cautious behavioral analyst should engage in.

Cross-Examination of Murdaugh

In fact, later when the DA was cross-examining Murdaugh, he gave a similar denial with the multiple head nods, which was a similar communication package as that described immediately above.

The problem with this other instance, however, was that the DA asked if Murdaugh had “annihilated” his family; thus, Murdaugh’s head nods could be an emphasis of his denial given the explosive nature of the word in the question itself.

Compounding all of this further were the vehement and somewhat emotional ways questions were addressed to Murdaugh by both his attorney and the DA. When interpreting behaviors associated with responses in such situations, it becomes very difficult to separate the behavioral signs of mental states related to his own state of mind and its contents and his reactions to the emotional ways in which the questions were being delivered.

Would Murdaugh have produced a different package of behavior with the denial if he were asked calmly or with less vocal intensity? Probably so.

Thus, attempts to analyze the situations above, and others like it, are difficult and sometimes futile because they are somewhat contaminated by context and the demeanor of the questioners themselves.

As a result, we have to look elsewhere in his testimony for demeanor that is clearer and can clean up some of these differentials in interpretation. In fact, those existed. (Can you find them?)

My point is this blog is that sometimes reading people and using behavioral indicators of mental states are not as easy as some portray. By the way, in our workshops, we provide the kind of textured and nuanced way of reading people that is especially effective for interviewers.

The post Analyzing Alex Murdaugh’s Body Language first appeared on Humintell.