Social Engineering Blogs

The Humintell Blog October 13, 2025

Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception?

In a previous blog, we discussed the latest scientific understanding about behavioral indicators of deception.

As explained in that blog and the underlying article on which the blog was based, scientific research in the past two decades has made substantial advances in validating a set of behavioral indicators of veracity and deception.

This work was notable because there have been previous claims questioning the validity of nonverbal behavior to do so, most of which were based on a meta-analysis of studies on deception cues published in 2003.

The recent scientific article reviewed that meta-analysis, and the research conducted in the twenty years since, to re-characterize the state of the field more precisely.

Deception Leakage Across Multiple Channels

As the recent blog summarized, behavioral indicators to deception do exist and they occur in leakage across multiple channels of nonverbal behavior.

Thus, instead of looking for single cues of deception, noticing multiple, validated clues of deception in clusters of specific behaviors is likely more beneficial to spot potential deception.

Also, a point that is often missed in the discussion about behavioral cues to deception concerns the fact that some of those same nonverbal behaviors are important signs of other mental states – both emotions and cognitions.

Although disputes previously existed about whether deception cues exist, there is little debate about the fact that nonverbal behaviors signal specific emotions and cognitions.

These cues also aid interviewers in obtaining many different insights into the subjects of their interviews, much beyond deception. Knowing when a subject is happy or sad, excited or afraid, or has hidden thoughts of hostility should allow interviewers to obtain additional insights about their interviewees, making their interviews more accurate and efficient.

In this blog I’d like to go beyond the message in the previous blog and discuss what to do once you observe such behavioral indicators in the interview.

Behavioral Indicators, not Determinants

Let’s first start with this idea: behavioral indicators of deception are exactly that – indicators and not determinants. They indicate that something else is going on in the minds of the speakers above and beyond the words that are spoken.

When they occur, yes – some thought or feeling is “hidden” from view, and thus deceptive. But, whether that “something else” is deceptive about the topic you’re interested in or not is an open question.

After all, people have lots of things in their minds and verbalize only a portion of their mental contents, and people can choose not to be open about a topic for many reasons.

For example, if a person were asked about what they did since waking up, they might be deceptive about some details about their morning toilet routine.

They may be too embarrassed to give all specific details.
They make think you don’t want to know everything.
They may think you don’t need to know everything.
Or they don’t want you to know something.

It’s only that last one – they don’t want you to know something– that is the meaningful deception that we want to uncover. But one might observe behavioral indicators for each of these possibilities.

Thus, behavioral indicators of deception help us to suspect deception but should not be considered determinants of deception.

That is, one should not conclude that a person is being deceptive solely because they produced a behavior that has been empirically linked to deception. There’s no “aha!” or “gotcha!”

Further Discussion and Probing

Instead, my interpretation of behavioral indicators is that, when they occur, they open the possibility for further discussion and probing about that topic, sentence, or word.

By the way, this is true for the so-called cognitive or linguistic indicators of deception as well.

Inconsistent or irrelevant statements and illogical narratives may be deception indicators, but the seasoned interviewer or interrogator would not necessarily draw conclusions or make determinations of deception solely based on such observations.

Instead, those cognitive and linguistic indicators, like behavioral indicators, invite further discussion and dialogue.

Multiple Indicators are Better

And, as mentioned in the previous blog, multiple indicators are better. Sure, sometimes meaningful deception occurs with a single indicator.

But when multiple validated indicators are observed – whether behavioral, cognitive, linguistic, or better yet a combination of these (which is what we teach in our courses), that cluster of validated indicators will generally be more indicative of something meaningful being hidden.

At the same time, we can’t get distracted by unvalidated or non-validated indicators. The internet is replete with so many of these.

Non-validated indicators are those that have been tested scientifically but have not been found to be associated with deception.

The classic example of a non-validated indicator is the lack of eye contact. This is a myth that is believed by many people around the world; yet scientific research has tested this behavior and has not provided support for it.

Likewise, unvalidated behaviors are those that have never been formally tested in research. Don’t be distracted by either of these.

What to do once possible deception indicators occur?

Bias of Expectation One simple suggestion is to ask more questions about the specific statement, topic, or word on which the deception indicators – cognitive, linguistic, or behavioral – were observed. And then ask more questions and detail about the responses provided.

When there’s multiple topics, statements, or words on which deception indictors were observed, then ask more questions about each one.

Interviewers may want to consider prioritizing which topics, statements, or words to probe depending on the goals of the interview, which each interviewer should know before starting the interview.

Only after sufficiently exhausting this process and considering all other sources of evidence that one may have would the astute interviewer draw conclusions from the interview.

In my experience, one of two things will happen. Probing the indicators will lead to either a resolution of the issue or the uncovering of something meaningful that the subject has been deceptive about.

Seeing a flash of fear in a passenger in an airport checkpoint queue may lead to a discussion in which the passenger was worried about whether she turned off the lights on her car in the parking garage (resolution) or was carrying contraband (deception).

Conclusion

In my opinion, therefore, observing behavioral indicators allow keen interviewers to home in on possible statements, topics, and specific words on which to have extended dialogues in the effort to uncover ground truth.

Leveraging behavioral and other indicators of deception, and veracity, and other mental states in an interview is half the battle; the other half is knowing where to go and crafting good questions.

By engaging in this kind of systematic process, interviewers can leverage behavioral indicators to work systematically to find ground truth in every interview.

The post Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception? first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The Humintell Blog October 9, 2025

What Elephants Teach Us About Intentional Gestures

Humans often assume we’ve cornered the market on complex communication. But a new study suggests that another highly social species—the elephant—shares our ability to use intentional nonverbal gestures to influence others’ behavior.

Researchers recently discovered that elephants can deliberately use trunk gestures to ask humans for food, passing behavioral tests typically reserved for primates. It’s the first strong evidence of goal-directed gestural communication in a non-primate species.

For Humintell readers, this discovery opens a fascinating window into the comparative science of nonverbal behavior. It reminds us that many of the communicative principles we teach—audience awareness, persistence, adaptability—aren’t uniquely human. They’re part of a broader, evolutionary story about what it means to connect, signal, and understand.

Elephants with Intent

As Discover Magazine recently reported, scientists from the University of St. Andrews and the non-profit HERD Trust observed 17 semi-captive African elephants interacting with human handlers in South Africa.

During a food-request task, elephants gestured toward humans using their trunks, ears, and head movements—sometimes reaching, sometimes pointing, sometimes shaking their heads in apparent frustration. Across the trials, researchers recorded 313 individual gestures representing 38 gesture types, half of which were shared by multiple elephants.

To test whether these gestures were truly intentional, the scientists applied three well-established behavioral criteria:

Audience Awareness – Elephants gestured only when a person was present and paying attention.
Persistence – When their goal (getting apples) wasn’t met, they continued signaling.
Elaboration – If persistence failed, they changed their gestures—intensifying or switching tactics.

Passing all three tests, the elephants demonstrated what psychologists call goal-directed communication: a deliberate attempt to influence another’s behavior through nonverbal signals.

The Building Blocks of Communication

At Humintell, we define nonverbal communication as “all the ways people transmit information, intentions, and emotions without words.” Our research—like the elephants’ experiment—shows that nonverbal communication is intentional, context-sensitive, and adaptive.

In one of our earlier blogs, The Importance of Nonverbal Communication, Dr. David Matsumoto emphasized that nonverbal signals are not just accessories to language; they are the foundation of human interaction.

The new elephant findings extend that foundation across species, suggesting that the roots of nonverbal intelligence run much deeper in the animal kingdom than once thought.

Just as humans gesture when speaking, nod to indicate understanding, or persist in signaling when misunderstood, elephants appear to use similar principles to achieve shared goals.

Lessons from Comparative Communication

This research invites us to think more broadly about communication itself. When we compare how elephants and humans use gestures, several themes emerge that resonate with Humintell’s core teachings.

1. Audience Awareness

Elephants were selective about when they gestured—only when a human was watching. Similarly, in humans, nonverbal communication depends heavily on recipient design—we tailor gestures, tone, and facial expressions to fit the attention and awareness of our audience.

This mirrors what we’ve discussed in Nonverbal Cues in the 21st Century: that human communicators still rely on being physically seen and heard to make meaning. When that visual feedback disappears—as it often does in text or digital communication—our effectiveness drops.

2. Persistence and Adaptation

When elephants didn’t receive the full food reward, they didn’t give up—they persisted or elaborated their gestures. The same principle applies to human communicators: when a message doesn’t land, we often repeat, adjust, or escalate.

In our post Clusters of Nonverbal Behaviors Differentiate Truths and Lies, we explained that deception researchers observe not one “tell,” but clusters of adaptive behaviors. Like elephants combining trunk reach with gaze or ear motion, humans unconsciously combine signals to increase communicative precision. Both species show behavioral flexibility, an essential marker of communicative intelligence.

3. Context and Feedback

Communication—whether human or animal—relies on feedback loops. Each gesture is both a signal and a test: “Did this work?” When it doesn’t, a skilled communicator adapts.

This adaptability also connects with our observations in How Nonverbal Communication Is Going Digital. As communication migrates to digital platforms, we lose many feedback cues that guide adaptation—eye contact, body shifts, microexpressions. In contrast, the elephant experiment reminds us how vital feedback is. Without it, meaning collapses.

Bridging Species: The Evolution of Intentional Gesture

Historically, intentional gesturing has been considered a hallmark of primate and human communication. The fact that elephants—separated from us by 90 million years of evolution—use similar cognitive strategies suggests convergent evolution.

In other words, when a species lives in a complex social world, intentional signaling becomes useful, even necessary. Elephants live in tight matriarchal families, coordinate travel and caregiving, and exhibit empathy—conditions that favor the emergence of flexible communication systems.

From a comparative standpoint, this aligns perfectly with what Humintell teaches about humans: our nonverbal systems evolved to manage social complexity—to bond, persuade, warn, and coordinate.

Implications for Human Nonverbal Training

So what can humans learn from elephants about reading and sending nonverbal cues?

Observe Context First. The same gesture can mean different things depending on situation and relationship. In both elephants and humans, context determines meaning.
Look for Persistence. When someone repeats or intensifies a cue, it often signals goal-directed intent. Are they trying harder to be understood?
Notice Adaptation. Skilled communicators—like these elephants—adjust strategy when their first approach doesn’t succeed. In humans, this shows flexibility and emotional intelligence.
Don’t Over-Rely on Single Cues. Just as elephants combined trunk, head, and ear gestures, human messages emerge from clusters of cues. Interpret patterns, not snapshots.

These lessons echo our work across multiple research programs on nonverbal accuracy, emotion recognition, and deception detection. Whether studying human microexpressions or elephant trunk gestures, the underlying science is the same: communication is about intention meeting perception.

The Bigger Picture

The elephant study doesn’t just expand our understanding of animal cognition—it also offers a mirror for human communicators. It suggests that the ability to intentionally gesture, persist, and adapt is not an evolutionary accident but a universal principle of social life.

At Humintell, our mission has always been to help people become more accurate observers and interpreters of nonverbal behavior. This research reinforces that skill development in humans taps into something deeply natural.

Just as elephants use gestures to connect with us, we use gestures—often unconsciously—to connect with one another. Both acts rest on the same foundation: a desire to be understood.

Final Thought

The next time you raise your hand, nod to a colleague, or gesture to emphasize a point, remember—you’re drawing from an ancient communicative toolkit shared with species far older than ours.

And if an elephant ever waves its trunk in your direction, it might just be saying, “Can you hear me?”—without uttering a sound.

Sources:

Discover Magazine (2024). Elephants Use Non-Verbal Gestures to Ask Humans for Food—A First in Non-Primates.

Scientific Reports (2024). Evidence for Intentional Gestural Communication in African Elephants.

The post What Elephants Teach Us About Intentional Gestures first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The Humintell Blog September 12, 2025

Autism and Facial Micromovements Explained

Autism and Facial Expressions: What We Often Miss

Facial expressions are the universal language of emotion. But for many autistic individuals, their emotional signals can be so subtle they go unnoticed.

A recent study from Rutgers University shows that tiny facial micromovements—invisible to the naked eye—carry rich emotional meaning.

This discovery reshapes how we understand autism and nonverbal communication, revealing that the emotional intent is there, but often hidden beneath the surface.

What Are Micromovement Spikes?

Researchers, led by Dr. Elizabeth Torres at Rutgers–New Brunswick’s Sensory Motor Integration Lab, identified micromovement spikes—rapid, faint muscle activations in the face.

Unlike traditional microexpressions, which last fractions of a second, micromovement spikes are subtler and harder to detect without technology.

The study found:

Autistic and neurotypical individuals both use the same facial muscles.
In autistic participants, expressions were often lower in intensity and fell outside the “culturally familiar range” people recognize.
Factors like age and sex influenced micromovement patterns, adding another layer of complexity.

How the Research Was Conducted

The team used a surprisingly simple method:

Recorded 5- to 6-second video clips on smartphones or tablets.
Applied advanced statistical and nonlinear dynamics tools.
Detected subtle micromovement spikes during expressions such as smiling or surprise.

This approach makes the findings highly practical for real-world use, from therapy to everyday interactions.

Why This Matters: Autism Communication and Connection

Misinterpreting—or missing—emotional cues in autism can lead to social disconnection and stigma.

This research suggests that by learning to detect micromovement spikes, caregivers, therapists, and educators can:

Better recognize emotions in autistic individuals.
Respond with empathy and accuracy.
Foster stronger social inclusion and understanding.

Future tools, such as apps that analyze micromovements in real time, may become emotional translators, helping bridge communication gaps.

Humintell’s Perspective

At Humintell, our mission is to help people recognize microexpressions and nonverbal cues to improve emotional intelligence and empathy.

This research aligns perfectly with that mission, reminding us that:

Emotional expression exists in everyone.
Sometimes, it just takes new methods—and greater awareness—to see it.

Key Takeaways on Autism and Micromovements

Insight	Why It Matters
Autistic facial expressions are present but faint	They may be misread or overlooked.
Micromovement spikes reveal subtle emotions	Technology makes them detectable.
Tools like smartphones can capture cues	Making this approach widely accessible.
Better recognition builds empathy	Leading to stronger inclusion and communication.

Dr. Matsumoto’s Comments

The findings from this study raise a couple of interesting questions about the nature of emotion, expression, and their signal value in individuals with ASD.

First, on one hand, the fact that microfacial movements are occurring in these individuals suggests that the link between the emotion elicitation system and the emotional signaling system (face, voice, etc.) in the brain is intact in these individuals.

Evidence for this linkage support the idea that emotions are akin to a central command center in the brain that is linked to muscle systems associated with expression and actions, which is consistent with what other research literature has suggested about the neurocircuitry associated with emotion.

On the other hand, the possibility that the microfacial movements that are occurring may be under the threshold for perception by others raises questions concerning their signal value.

Correctly reading others’ emotional expressions is crucial for effective and constructive social interactions, and if others cannot see expressions, this can lead to difficulties in social interactions.

This is in fact some of the difficulties that individuals with ASD may experience.

As the article mentions, increasing the ability of ASD families and caretakes to read those microfacial movements, even with technology, may be something of value to address this difficult area.

That possibility depends, however, on exactly what messages are conveyed by the micromovements.

The post Autism and Facial Micromovements Explained first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.