An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields
Humintell wants to spread the love.
This short but inspiring video shows that as people we interact, express and feel emotions in a variety of ways.
A reminder that many of the emotions we encounter on a daily basis are a conscious choice.
Click here to view the embedded video.
What Emotions Will You Experience Today?
The FBI’s March 2014 Bulletin featured important interviewing techniques and detailed information on reading people. Drs. David Matsumoto, Humintell’s Director, and Hyisung Hwang as well as former FBI Special Agent Lisa Skinner commented on the scientific evidence behind behavioral anomalies that they have found through years of research and training.
Many law enforcement professionals understand and appreciate the importance of behavioral anomalies. These verbal and nonverbal signs of cognition and emotions provide additional clues to what an individual is thinking and feeling beyond the content of the words being spoken. In the context of investigative interviewing, these behavioral anomalies are called indicators.
When reading people, one important distinction interviewers must make is the difference between validated and non-validated indicators. Those that are validated have scientific and field evidence documenting the association between the behavior and specific cognition or emotions. Non-validated indicators lack such data—either in scientific evidence, field operations, or both.
This bulletin give a great example of validated and non-validated indicators. Take the example provide below of an interview of a suspect:
A police officer asks what happened. For an instant the interviewee’s eyes get wide so that the white above the irises is visible. The suspect’s story begins with details about memories from before the incident, including things the alleged offender did and did not do. The suspected criminal describes the event while wringing the hands and looking away, up and to the left, not making direct eye contact. The interviewee’s speech becomes slower and references to other people change with the use of pronouns. The suspect, whose left eyebrow is twitching, does not speak about the incident itself and finishes the story with “and that’s about it.”
There are validated and non-validated indicators imbedded in the example at the beginning of this article. Do You Know What They Are?
1. The flash of the eyes so that the white above the iris is seen is a validated indicator of concealed fear,
2. The suspect’s comments about behavior that did not occur are indicative of a potential lie i.e is a validated indicator.
3. Looking up to the left and twitching of the left eyebrow are not validated indicators of lying, even though many people believe they are.
Researchers, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang and former FBI agent Skinner agree that, “Anomalies provide important cues and valuable insight into the personality, motivation, and intention of suspects. Investigators must ask themselves some important questions based on their observation of behavioral anomalies.”
Statement and nonverbal analysis are not new to law enforcement as the techniques have been taught to investigators for years. However, in real-life, indicators of veracity and lying occur simultaneously, and awareness of both increases an investigator’s ability to identify meaningful content areas of an interview. The importance of considering verbal and nonverbal indicators concurrently was highlighted in a recent study—published in a previous FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
Humintell offers training for leaning how to read facial expressions of emotion as well as live webinars and webinar recordings that have the practical applications of their facial expression training. Some of the practical applications of studying facial expressions of emotion such as microexpressions is outlined in further examples in the FBI Bulletin.
Recognizing these indicators helps investigators detect lies and gain insight into the personality, motivation, and internal conflicts of interviewees and identify content areas necessitating further exploration and discovery. Law enforcement officers would benefit from imbedding these techniques within their strategic interview methodology.
For more detailed information and examples regarding validated and non-validated behavioral anomalies, read the entire article: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: Reading People: Behavioral Anomalies and Investigative Interviewing.
Courtesy of StockVault
A new study reported on by LiveScience suggests an alternative interpretation to the well-established fact that humans are terrible at correctly determining when they are being deceived.
Previous studies have shown that humans are no better than chance at detecting deception; however, this study suggests that the subconscious mind may be better at detecting deceit than previously thought.
The study, co-authored by social psychologist Leanne ten Brinke at UC Berkeley and published in the journal of Psychological Science, posits that the signals being received by the part of our brain that isn’t actively engaged in analyzing a potential liar’s movements and speech patterns are perhaps the crucial pieces of the puzzle and can help a person decipher the liars from the truth tellers.
“If I give you ten videos where five people are lying and five people are telling the truth, I can predict that you and everybody else is going to perform at 50 percent,“ said study co-author Leanne ten Brinke, a social psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley. “It’s just as accurate as flipping a coin.“ However, ten Brinke and her colleagues sought out to answer the question of whether the human subconscious is a more accurate lie detector. From an evolutionary standpoint, this made sense.
A group of 72 students was asked to determine whether their peers were lying to them about knowledge of $100 worth of money left in books. These amateur detectives did no better than chance, as has been proven in previous studies where people were asked to distinguish between liars and truth tellers. However, when asked what words they associated with each of the people they interacted with, the students had an implicit association of negative words (“deceitful,” “untruthful”) with the liars and positive words (“honest,” “valid”) with the truth-tellers.
The results of the research suggest that our subconscious minds are better at sensing differences in people’s behavior than we might think, though the cause for those differences may be unknown. A vague sense of unease is all it takes for our instincts to kick in and cause us to avoid an untruthful person.
“Our unconscious might be picking up on the right things that really are there,“ ten Brinke said.
The next step for the researchers is to determine something in the viewer’s response that could help scientists to easily and cheaply identify liars. Scientists are hopeful that they would be able to channel the aforementioned subconscious lie detection to find liars without the use of expensive lie detectors.