Liespotting_Proven Techniques to Detect Deception

by Pamela Meyer

  The liars were not found out. But Hancock’s findings did reveal that people who are being lied to online will ask more questions than when they are being told the truth. “Even though [the subjects] were unaware of the deception manipulation, the data suggest that they were implicitly aware that they were being lied to.”19

  *

  “Let’s set up a video conference…no, I’ll e-mail you…wait! I’d better call….”

  Still, the phone can be a decent people-reading tool. Vocal attributes like pitch, volume, and rate of speech comprise about 12 percent of our communication. You can negotiate with someone over the phone and hear hesitance in a pause, frustration in a sigh, nervousness in a jittery laugh.

  But how often do you use the phone these days? Isn’t it easier to “ping” someone with a quick e-mail? Not always. Paradoxically, e-mail’s traceability makes it an unwelcome medium for transmitting important or confidential information. “I’d better call you,” we’ll say when there is something to discuss that can’t leave a paper trail.

  Less face-to-face interaction, fewer phone calls; all we have left are words. And believe it or not, words make up only 7 percent of how humans normally communicate with one another. We rehearse our words daily, we choose them with care when we can, yet they comprise only a small fraction of what we actually “say.”

  *

  WHEN ARE YOU MOST LIKELY TO HEAR A LIE?

  One study found that over a one-week period, lies were detected in

  37 percent of phone calls

  27 percent of face-to-face meetings

  21 percent of IM chats

  14 percent of e-mails20

  Of all of these forms of communication, only e-mails and IMs leave a paper trail, explaining their apparent honesty-inducing power.

  *

  Working at home or in satellite offices deprives us even further of a rich store of nuanced information. Those of us who go to a workplace each day at least run into our colleagues in the bathroom and the parking lot en route to our cubicles. But the pulse in a partner’s jaw when he’s furious, the split-second glance a business manager gives her assistant, the half smile a boss can’t conceal when he’s assigning an unpleasant job—all of these clues to others’ state of mind are lost on millions of virtual workers today. It has become common practice to do business with people we will never meet or speak to.

  THE BREAKDOWN OF INFORMATION

  While our lines of communication have grown increasingly silent, they are still buzzing with data. They are silent; not empty. Computing power doubles every eighteen months; businesses expand at exponential rates; digital clutter is on the rise. The Internet and other communication technologies supply us with more information than we could ever use. Two hundred ten billion e-mails are sent daily, which is more than a whole year’s worth of letter mail. Three million images—enough to fill a 375,000-page photo album—are uploaded to flickr.com each day. Bloggers post 900,000 new articles a day.21 Information pours in from countless locations, people, and organizations—some well established, some relatively unknown, some anonymous. Deciding which sources are worth our time, and which ones are worth our trust, has become a burdensome task. We can no longer rely on an easily managed handful of major newspapers, network television stations, and radio channels to serve as arbiters of critical information. We’ve had to become our own judges of useful, reliable knowledge, and the results are mixed at best.

  It’s easier to go online and read The Drudge Report than to fumble through The New York Times. Why not check out a summary of the news, rather than waste time on primary sources, especially when the online writer doing the summaries can make them funnier and more pointed than stodgy regular news? Our reliance on derivative information and sophisticated hearsay is increasing. A blog rumor or an eccentric political commentator’s opinion can be passed to so many people so quickly that within a few minutes thousands of people take it as fact. Remember the widely reported 9/11 rumor that office workers “surfed” to safety down the sides of the Twin Towers?

  Who’s providing the mass of commentary and maybe-it’s-true information online? The very anonymity of many bloggers seems to give their words more power. We don’t know them, yet it’s hard to dismiss them. What if we ignore them and they turn out to be right? Are we at risk of missing out on the next important insider tip, trend, or opportunity? We fret that if our competitors are paying attention to a twenty-four-year-old Twitter expert who claims to have insight into the next emerging market, it would probably be irresponsible to ignore her. So we tune in, and then we tune in to the next hot site, and the next, until we face the danger of becoming overly dependent on advice and information from people we’ll never meet, who have manufactured advice and information from people they have never met.

  *

  WHY VIDEOCONFERENCING ISN’T THE SOLUTION

  Videoconferencing allows workers to speak face-to-face across vast distances while saving time and travel expenses, but the likelihood of its being widely adopted anytime soon is small. Though Skype and other companies offer free conferencing, most businesses aren’t rushing to take them up on it.

  Videoconferencing feels off-putting and unnatural in a business context—it’s one thing to “chat” with a faraway loved one via Skype, but quite another to use it for meetings. The reason is that though videoconference meetings are indeed face-to-face, they’re not eye to eye. Jim Van Meggelen, president and CTO of Core Telecom Innovations, explains it this way:

  The focal point of the screen is not the focal point of the camera, and it is therefore impossible to both look at the person you are talking to and see them as well. You either look at the screen or the camera. This makes for a very unnatural conversation, because if you are looking at my face on your screen, your camera will capture you looking down, not at me. If you look at your camera, then I will see you looking at me, but you will not be able to see my face, because your eyes will not be on your screen.

  Also, most videoconferences are recorded and archived, which may inhibit dialogue of a confidential nature. Says Van Meggelen, “People value their communications, but also their privacy.”22

  *

  THE BREAKDOWN OF BUSINESS CULTURE

  To make this assessment even gloomier, let’s review the following:

  Surveys show that most people admit to feeling much less guilt about behaving dishonestly at work than in their personal lives—and it’s not just a matter of helping themselves to a few office supplies. One study found that 66 percent of interviewees for new jobs were misled about the financial status of the company where they hoped to work.23

  An overwhelming majority—83 percent—of college undergraduates lie in an attempt to get a job,24 and they feel little guilt because they “know” that everyone around them is doing it too.

  Almost half of the workers in one study admitted to engaging in one or more unethical and/or illegal actions over the course of a year.25

  All negotiators in one study either lied about a problem or did not reveal it unless they were directly asked about it.26

  So…which weapons will you use against deception?

  THE OLD TOOLS, AND WHY THEY DON’T WORK

  Military and intelligence agencies have been funding the study of human deception for de cades. The best-known tool for lie detection is also the first one that was developed: the polygraph. This machine has existed in various incarnations since the early twentieth century. William Moulton Marston, creator of the comic book character Wonder Woman, is usually credited with its invention. (Wonder Woman, you might recall, snared villains using her Golden Lasso, which forced anyone caught in it to tell the truth.) The modern polygraph simultaneously measures involuntary spikes in a person’s heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and levels of perspiration when he is interrogated—the theory being that any marked physiological responses are likely a result of the stress one experiences when fabricating lies. Unfortunately, it’s a theory that’s been proven widely
unreliable. Polygraph tests are rarely admitted as evidence in court, though government agencies still use them and developers continue to improve the technology.

  *

  LIE DETECTION THROUGH HANDWRITING ANALYSIS

  A study in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology suggests that handwriting tests might one day work as well as lie detectors.

  Dr. Gil Luria and Dr. Sara Rosenblum, researchers at Haifa University in Israel, asked volunteers to write two paragraphs, one true, the other false. The subjects used wireless electronic pens with pressure-sensitive tips. For each paragraph, the researchers measured how hard the volunteers pressed the pen; the length of their pen strokes; the height and width of the letters they wrote; and the length of time they lifted the pen off their computerized tablets. There were notable and consistent differences between the false paragraphs and the true ones.

  Subjects pressed harder on the tablet when they lied. The “flow” of their handwriting strokes—the height and length of the characters—was also visibly different. The Haifa researchers speculate that the difference is caused by the cognitive stress caused by “lie-writing,” which makes it harder to write naturally by hand.

  “A lie detector that analyses handwriting has many advantages over the existing detectors,” said Luria and Rosenblum. “It is less threatening for the person being examined, is much more objective, and does not depend on human interpretation. The system also provides measures that the individual has difficulty controlling during performance.”27

  Maybe this is a good excuse to put off writing thank-you notes for presents you didn’t like.

  *

  A more sophisticated device, though not more trusted in legal proceedings, is the electroencephalogram (EEG), which is used to measure electrical activity in the brain. The theory underlying the use of the EEG is that someone working hard to concoct a plausible story during an interrogation might show markedly higher neural activity than someone who is telling the truth. After all, the truth-teller has a simple task: to remember and report what happened. A deceptive person must dredge through his imagination first. His brain may be far more active.

  Experts have also been eyeing the thermal scanner, a heat-sensitive camera that detects the increased blood flow—and thus the increased heat—that some scientists suggest builds around the eye when people lie. Researchers are testing infrared brain scans, eye trackers, and even specialized MRIs for their potential to read the electric and cognitive signals our bodies send out when we attempt to deceive others.

  THE NEW TOOLS

  Maybe one day these technologies will prove useful to the general population; maybe not. But even if they do, who’s going to drag an electroencephalogram into the office? Luckily, you won’t have to go to these lengths to know whether you can trust your colleagues, business partners, or advisers. The best lie-detection tools are already right at your disposal if you learn how to use them correctly. Those tools are your skills of interpretation. You can learn how to listen for what’s not said, to decode what is said. You can learn to tune in to vocal patterns and tones, and to read body language and facial expressions accurately.

  You can become a human lie detector.

  WHAT THIS BOOK CAN TEACH YOU

  Liespotting is a three-pronged approach that involves equal measures of scientific information, observation training, and interrogation practice. It’s not enough to recognize lies. It’s the complex truth we’re after. You’ll learn that spotting a lie is just the beginning. It’s the question you ask next that matters just as much.

  You’ll learn the basics of micro-expression analysis. Around the globe, the questions of why and how human beings deceive each other has drawn interest from all branches of science—biology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, neuroscience. One of the most applicable areas of research is the study of facial micro-expressions, the subtle twists of the lips, flinches in the cheek, and eyebrow movements that signal our true emotions. Used correctly, the interpretation of micro-expressions can provide us with an almost 95 percent accuracy rate in lie detection,28 especially when boosted by an understanding of how we construct our sentences, how we use our bodies, and how we maneuver objects around us—bags, chairs, cell phones—when we’re not telling the truth.

  You’ll also discover how deceivers really behave, and you’ll drop outdated myths like “Liars never look you in the eye” (a lot of truth-tellers don’t either) and “Liars cross their arms defensively in front of their bodies” (so do plenty of honest people).

  Most important, you’ll learn that there’s much more to the study of liespotting than merely observing the behavior of others. Dive deep into the study of deception in your life, and before you know it, you’ll be taking inventory of the numerous ways you have colluded in the act of being deceived. Do you think you were a victim of deception? Think again.

  DECEPTION IS A COOPERATIVE ACT

  No one can lie to you without your approval. The liar and the recipient participate in a fabric of mythmaking together. A lie does not have power by its utterance—its power lies in someone agreeing to believe the lie.

  Whether I choose to believe that a stock is going up, or that my dress looks gorgeous on me, or that I wasn’t cc’d on a memo due to an oversight depends on how I view the world if I choose to assent to your proposition. My judgment of this information is what filters it, so if I can keep greed at bay (I don’t let greed influence my willingness to agree that the stock is going up), my ego intact (I don’t necessarily believe my dress looks gorgeous on me), my impulsiveness in check (even though I desperately need this job, I choose not to agree that the company will still be solvent in six months), then I can begin to look coldly at the facts and observe the markers of deception through unbiased eyes. So we start with the myths that inform our lives, because no one can lie to you unless you agree to be lied to.

  Jane Sullivan readily admits that she made it easy for the COO of an investment company to swindle her out of $250,000—her retirement savings. Jane had invested in a diamond mine in South Africa, a venture run by a Chicago property company, WexTrust. With the COO confidently predicting returns of more than 30 percent, it had been a dazzling offering. But while many would have viewed it as too good to be true—or just extraordinarily risky—Jane had instead decided to plunge ahead, and invested a quarter of a million dollars.

  A few months later, however, everything unraveled. The COO had been running a classic Ponzi scheme—with early investors making good profits from the investments of those farther down the line. And to Jane’s chagrin, she was later to find that she was the last investor in before the SEC pounced.

  Jane is not naive regarding financial matters. She has an MBA from one of the world’s most prestigious business schools, built a thriving business in Paris, and successfully bought and sold properties, allowing her finally, at age fifty, to move to New York and live off her investments.

  So how could she have been drawn in by such a scheme? Why was she taken in by the COO? “I was just stupid,” she says. “I saw things that should have alerted me and I ignored them. I simply wanted to believe it was true.” It wasn’t as if the COO was a smooth Wall Street operator. “He was an extremely unappealing sight; sweaty and grossly overweight,” Jane remembers of her first meeting with him. “But he had a very jovial manner about him. Within minutes I felt I knew him and that he was a good friend.”

  In fact, Joseph Shereshevsky was a convicted fraudster who’d pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2003. But Jane had no idea. “He knows how to draw people in. It’s his skill—by the end of the conversation I had asked lots of questions, seen lots of data, and heard lots of stories from him.”

  What had particularly caught her attention was the enticement of a promised 30 to 80 percent return for at least sixteen years. It seemed incredible—but it was a diamond mine, after all—and she discussed it with her brother-in-law, a sophisticated investor who was worth millions. He too was drawn in by the potential returns, a
nd together they repeatedly met with Shereshevsky, learning more about the project, and about diamond mining in general.

  But while Jane was becoming more and more interested in the investment, she also spotted a number of errors in the paperwork—numbers that didn’t add up, crucial mistakes in legal documents—which she pointed out to Shereshevsky.

  “Every time, he had an answer for me, and it wasn’t an answer I particularly believed. But because he gave me an answer, I just stopped worrying about the issues.”

  Normally Jane is an astute businesswoman, sharp and smart. Such errors at the very least would have suggested shoddy workmanship—and risk. So what was the reason for this lapse in judgment? Why didn’t she jump ship?

  She is admirably candid about herself. “I was being tainted by greed. I just wanted to believe it all.”

  THE REAL GAIN

  Of course, quickly learning whom to trust has practical applications. When given the choice of ten fabulously skilled job applicants, a human resources director can figure out faster which of them to hire. Faced with a handful of journalists eager to conduct a one-on-one interview, a CEO can ascertain which is least likely to add his own “interpretation” to a news story. A consultant can confidently pick a client or an employer who can be trusted to pay him on time.

  We don’t go to the gym to become stronger just so we can spend even more time at the gym. We go because once we are stronger, we start to feel that energetic rush that follows a great workout, and we improve our ability to lead long, healthy lives. Similarly, one doesn’t undertake deception-detection training just to be able to point a finger at a liar. A little bit of liespotting training goes a long way toward strengthening many of our relationships, so we can develop a small inner circle of fiercely loyal, dependable colleagues and friends, sharpen our instincts, bolster our productivity, increase our confidence in ourselves, and improve our work environment.