In a previous blog

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?

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 post Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception? appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

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.

The post The Latest Science about Behavioral Indicators of Deception appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

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.

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

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.

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

A body language expert can tell you that means he’s lying. His body gave away the truth while his words lied. #MurdaughTrial #Liar #AlexMurdaugh pic.twitter.com/ZYGi5EsIvS

— The Truth (@pattykazUSA) February 24, 2023

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.

The post Analyzing Alex Murdaugh’s Body Language appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

Re-published with permission from Evidentia University.

Friends of the Nonverbal Communication Blog, this week we present the paper “Atypical behaviors found in some mental health conditions negatively affect judgements of deception and credibility” by Lim, A.; Young, R. L. and Brewer, N. (2022), in which authors carry out a study to examine some visible behaviors that we associate with an unbelievable speech, but also, are behaviors that people with some mental conditions can present.

There is a general belief that what people say does not matter as much as their behavior when they say it, since it could indicate guilt, deception, regret, etc.

In a 2006 study, 58 participants were asked when they knew someone was lying. The most common answers were: when there is an aversion to the gaze, incoherence, exaggerated body movements, certain facial expressions…

Only one of the elements was related to the content of the message: the inconsistency. Which leads us to think that we focus much more on non-verbal elements than on verbal ones, an idea consistent with numerous previous studies on the subject.

While the use of unreliable cues in lie detection is concerning in itself, it is likely to be problematic for people who have a disability or mental health condition as well.

For example, some people with social anxiety and social communication disorders have difficulty maintaining eye contact, which, rather than being a guilt avoidance mechanism, is more related to fear of social interaction.

On the other hand, repetitive body movements may be behaviors of people with neuro-developmental disorders or autism spectrum disorders.

However, to an observer who doesn’t know much about the subject, these behaviors can be misinterpreted as signs of nervousness or guilt.

Another indicator of trustworthiness is emotional expressions.

For example, there are studies that show that, in a trial, both victims and defendants are perceived as more credible when they show negative emotions (such as crying) rather than neutral (flat affect) or positive emotions (smiles).

Despite the fact that many studies have pointed out that it is necessary to pay attention to verbal signals especially, the stereotype that the most important are the non-verbal ones is very widespread, even for professionals such as police or judges.

This can be explained by attribution theory, which is based on the premise that individuals inherently seek to understand and explain observed behaviors, thus attributing a cause to the behavior.

In another study, authors examine the effect of four cues commonly associated with lying: gaze aversion, repetitive body movements, monologues, and flat affect. These behaviors are selected because they are associated with lying and also because they often appear in people with mental health problems.

It was hypothesized that individuals displaying these behaviors would be perceived as more liars and less credible. The total sample was a total of 392 people of legal age, gathered through online tools.

They were shown a video of a game, in which one person had to choose whether or not to steal a small amount of money and then convince another person that they had or had not. If they got away with it, they got $50; if not, only $10. The people in these videos were professional actors with a standardized script.

Results revealed significant effects of repetitive body movements and monologues on perceived deception, and significant effects of flat affect on credibility. It is important, as it could have important practical indications for people who often show these behaviors, for example, people with schizophrenia or mood disorders, people with neuro-developmental disorders, autism spectrum, among others.

However, contrary to expectations, and also contrary to previous studies, gaze aversion did not have a significant effect on judgments of deception or credibility. It is possible that this happened because in this study this trait was studied individually, while in most studies it is interpreted within a context or accompanied by other behaviors that can give strength to the “lie effect”.

One limitation of the study is that it was not conducted with people with mental health conditions, so authors recommend the direct participation of these populations.

If you want to know more about nonverbal behavior and how it influences our personal relationships, visit our Nonverbal Communication Certificate, a 100% online program certificated by the Heritage University (Washington) with special discounts for readers of the Nonverbal Communication Blog.

The post Mental Health and Deception Detection first appeared on Humintell.

The post Mental Health and Deception Detection appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

Have you ever conducted an interview and were unsure if the individual was being 100% honest? If so, then this article is for you!

We all know that the largest cost in any business is usually payroll. In order to have loyal, hardworking and HONEST team members, you need to hire appropriately.

As a business owner, we have an obligation to our clients to ensure the highest levels of integrity and that all starts with our team and who we hire.

This article will assist you with hiring the ‘right’ candidate within your business by providing you tips on how to truly conduct a successful interview.

According to Statistic Brain, $50 billion is stolen annually from U.S. Businesses by their employees. That is almost equivalent to $137 million a day that comes right off the bottom line from all companies combined throughout the nation. This is a staggering amount, which can be blamed on our economy, a company’s culture, their screening process and I personally know it can be seen & prevented during the hiring process. Mainly in the first INTERVIEW and I want to show you how.

There have been dishonest people throughout the world for thousands of years and obviously this will continue but the question is not one’s level of integrity but why are we hiring someone who is being dishonest during the interview?

Since, I am sure no one would knowingly hire someone who was being deceptive during an interview; I could only assume it is because the interviewer is not aware of the non-verbal modes of communication that occur during EVERY conversation.

I am going to cover eight (8) CREDIBLE steps that will assist you within the hiring process, making your interviews more effective, which in turn will help you make a better decision when attempting to hire the ‘right’ person for the job.

1.    CONDUCT A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE RESUME:

According to the Society of Human Resource managers, 53% of people lie on their resume. So, that means more than half of the people you interview will have inaccurate information on their resume/application.

When reviewing a resume, you should be aware of time gaps, numerous employers, education level and experience in the position they are applying for.

If you are reviewing an application, you should pay close attention to the reasons they left their previous employer/s, criminal convictions and missing names/numbers of previous employers. This is the information you will use to base some of your questioning during an actual interview.

2.   REVIEW THE REFERENCES:

Now, some businesses will not give you any information regarding an applicant and may have you contact their corporate office.

However, it doesn’t hurt to try and who knows, you may get some very insightful information that you could use in your interview.

So, please ensure you are taking notes while conducting your reference checks and use these notes as a guide with regards to their previous employers, education and additional skills they CLAIM to have on their resume or application.

3.    ELIMINATE INTERRUPTIONS:

You can do this by placing a ‘DO NOT DISTURB’ sign on the door, turning off your mobile phone, asking them to turn their phone off and/or unplugging any landline phones in the interviewing area.

Then remove the barrier that most interviewers have when conducting an interview. You know the barrier I’m referring to.

Come out from behind your desk and place two chairs facing one another in the middle of the room with nothing in between them. Now, you the interviewer should be sitting in a rolling chair, preferably one with a backrest and armrests. The interviewee should be sitting in a stationary chair with a backrest but without wheels and preferably without armrests.

This will help you read their body language during the interview and since their chair will not have wheels, they will not be able to roll their chair & release nervous energy.

4.    DON’T ASK CLOSED ENDED QUESTIONS:

You should be doing 20% of the talking as they should be doing 80% of the talking, which can be accomplished by asking open ended questions.

For instance, “Tell me about a time you were terminated by one of your previous employers.” as opposed to “Have you ever been terminated by one of your previous employers?” The first question is open and will cause the guilty party to think more about the answer, which in turn may cause non-verbal modes of communication or body language markers of discomfort.

This can help you identify the dishonest candidate and actually motivate them to be honest about their previous performance issues as well as why they were terminated. We will talk more about that in step # 5.

The latter of the two questions is closed and could be easily answered with a simple ‘no’, whether they were or were not terminated in the past.

5.    INTENSIVE LISTENING:

An honest person will usually speak with confidence and in a timely manner to the question being asked. Using the example above, an honest person after hearing the question “Tell me about a time you were terminated by one of your previous employers.” will quickly reply; “I’ve never been terminated!” if they in fact have not been.

However, the dishonest candidate may pause and take a moment to think before answering that question because of how it was asked. Since a simple yes or no doesn’t suffice, they will need to think more about the actual time they WERE terminated! That pause in answering can mean a few things such as them thinking about, which job of the many they may have been terminated from or they may be deciding whether or not to be honest with you (Internal Dialogue).

That is when your rolling chair comes into play and is used to move in just a bit closer and with a soft spoken tone of voice say something like: “Hey, we’re both human and we all make mistakes and bad decisions sometimes. What happened?, Why were you terminated?” This rationalization is how you can motivate them to be more honest with regards to answering that question. This technique can be used with other open ended questions as well.

6.   BE AWARE OF THE NON-VERBAL CLUES:

Please keep in mind when reading body language, the markers or ‘tells’ mentioned below must come in clusters and be timely with the questions asked.

Just observing one or two of the body language markers mentioned below does NOT mean the candidate is being deceptive. These behaviors are usually associated with individuals who are nervous in general and that would be a normal reaction during an interview. However, we all know that a person being deceptive will most likely be nervous as well.

So, be mindful of the following body language markers or ‘tells’:

• Tone of voice
• Eye contact/movement
• Red/flush/blotchy skin
• Body alignment
• Hesitation with answers
• Breathing pace
• Open or closed body language
• Avoiding questions
• Position of legs/feet
• Look for unusual reactions
• Dramatic changes in body position
• Negative tone on specific questions
• Wringing of hands/repeated rubbing or scratching

Once again, please keep in mind when reading body language, the aforementioned markers or ‘tells’ must come in clusters and be timely with the questions asked.

Just observing one or two of the body language markers above does NOT mean the candidate in being deceptive. You are merely evaluating comfort levels to the questions being asked.

To learn more about body language markers, feel free to click on or search #ClipWithATip now.

7.    LOOK FOR FACIAL MICRO-EXPRESSIONS:

Another body language marker to pay close attention to are the facial micro-expressions that happen sometimes in a fifth of a second, which can help you determine what emotion they are truly feeling at the very moment the question was asked.

The Seven Basic Emotions are 1. Anger, 2. Contempt, 3. Disgust, 4. Fear, 5. Happiness, 6. Sadness 7. Surprise.

These emotions have been scientifically proven to have a certain facial expression associated with them, which you can see below in the photos

8.    ENSURE THAT THREE FORMS ARE PROVIDED:

So, you feel this is the person you would like to hire? I would strongly suggest having EVERY potential employee read and sign a background check consent form, credit check consent form as well as a drug test consent form.

Once they are provided with these documents, they have been informed that these extra preventive measures are in place, which may in turn make them reconsider employment if they KNOW you are checking all three areas. If they sign the forms, ensure all three checks are actually completed.

In conclusion, there are numerous tools you can use to ensure you are conducting a successful interview. The eight steps mentioned above are a few of the basics needed in order to become a successful interviewer and assist you within the hiring process.

If you truly want to master the art of interviewing, then you should NOT miss my presentation entitled “Interviews For Success: An insiders approach to reading body language.”, where I discuss open ended questions, facial micro-expressions and how to read body language effectively.

The post 8 CREDIBLE Steps To Become A Successful Interviewer first appeared on Humintell.

The post 8 CREDIBLE Steps To Become A Successful Interviewer appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

What were the answers? Find out below!

Person #1: Truth Teller

Notice after she says “this tastes good” there’s a slight smile on her face. Lip corners are raised diagonally slightly and her cheeks are raised. This nonverbal behavior is consistent with her making a positive statement.

Watch it again:

Person #2: Liar

While person #2 smiles slightly before saying “this tastes good”, you may have noticed while he is saying the phrase his eyebrows are pulled up and together creating horizontal lines across his forehead. This is indicative of fear, which is contradictory to the positive phrase he said. Essentially he verbally saying “this tastes good” but nonverbally saying “I’m scared”. This is a definite hot spot.

Watch it again:

Person #3: Truth Teller

Person #3 is pretty stone cold in his response and his voice is fairly flat. However, there’s nothing behaviorally that would indicate he is being deceptive.

Watch it again:

Person #4: Liar

Person #4 actually flashes anger twice. Once immediately after drinking the vinegar and once while saying “this tastes good”. His browns are drawn down and together. Essentially saying “this tastes good” but saying nonverbally “I’m angry”. Another hot spot.

Watch it again:

Remember that seeing a hot spot is not always a sign that someone is lying, but often times are situations where there is an underlying or hidden message. If you see a hot spot and you feel the situation is necessary, you should ask more questions, or find out why that individual has hidden feelings about that topic. Don’t jump to the conclusion that they are automatically lying.

Had a hard time seeing these subtle expressions?

We encourage you to check out our SubX subtle expression training that will teach you how to recognize facial expressions of lower intensity. Recent research even suggests that the ability to detect subtle expressions may be especially important for detecting deception!

The post RESULTS: Reading Microexpressions: Put Yourself to the Test first appeared on Humintell.

The post RESULTS: Reading Microexpressions: Put Yourself to the Test appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

For example, if you ask a person how they like your dress and they say “I love it!” but they flash a sign of disgust, this would be a hot spot. What they said and what their body said are inconsistent with each other.

It’s important to understand that hot spots always a sign that someone is lying, but often times are situations where there is an underlying or hidden message.

NOTE: If you see a hot spot and you feel the situation is necessary, you should ask more questions, or find out why that individual has hidden feelings about that topic. Don’t jump to the conclusion that they are automatically lying.

Put Yourself To The Test!

Put yourself to the test with the fun videos below.

This episode of National Geographic’s Brain Games tested actor Ted Danson’s ability to read microexpressions.

They brought in 4 poker players who are known to control their expressions in high stakes situations. Each poker player had two shot glasses in front of them- one containing apple juice and the other containing apple cider vinegar.

Their instructions were to drink the liquid (not knowing if they were drinking the juice or vinegar) and to say “this tastes good” all while keeping a poker face.

Who is Lying?

Let’s look at each individual one by one to see what their faces revealed.

Person #1

Person #2

Person #3

Person #4

Who do you think is lying and what did you see?

Weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section and we’ll reveal the answer in our next blog!

The post Reading Microexpressions: Put Yourself to the Test first appeared on Humintell.

The post Reading Microexpressions: Put Yourself to the Test appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

In fact when it comes to pundits commenting about body language in the media, “what you see is often more entertainment than science and it can contribute to misinformation,” says Vincent Denault, a communication researcher at the University of Montreal.

Dr. Matsumoto agrees. In a recent interview for Undark Magazine, he says while it is certainly true that there’s a lot of great information a person can get from nonverbals, you have to be careful.

What is Body Language?

Body language is also known by another term called Nonverbal Behavior.

Nonverbal behavior is a complex signal system of the body to communicate our mental states, thoughts and feelings. It’s one of the most complex signal systems of the body because it includes different channels like facial expressions, tone of voice, hands, gestures, body posture, the way we walk- even how much space we take when we talk with each other, and whether or not we touch each other.

Each of those channels can communicate different messages. They communicate specific or generic emotions. They communicate cognitive processes or specific cognitions; some kind of physiological states and some other things.

When you put all those channels together with all those signals it’s really easy to see why nonverbal behavior or body language is one of the most, or the most, complex signal system in the body.

What channel should you focus on?

Research has shown that of all of the channels and all of the messages coming at us, one of the most important is facial expressions of emotion. That’s why we focus on facial expressions of emotion here at Humintell.

That doesn’t mean that everything else is not important because we also focus on the other things, like gesture and voices and everything else. But facial expressions of emotion are the most important channel that we have.

When we’re trying to observe body language, it’s just so overwhelming because there’s so many channels and messages.

For example, it is an indisputable fact that facial expressions can convey certain types of emotional states. But faces are used to do a lot of other things such as signal cognition and cognitive processes, signal specific verbal words or phrases, speech articulation, signal physical exertion or physical effort and other idiosyncratic things.

Other nonverbal motions like a shrug can signal certain types of emotional states as well. But Dr. Matsumoto explains that there’s a lot of noise, too; people do all kinds of things with their bodies. For example, a person’s raised eyebrow could be express disbelief — but it might also signal discomfort or surprise. The same hand gesture could mean different things in different cultures.

What about Catching Liars?

When it comes to assessing credibility, recent research suggests that instead of using single, specific behaviors to detect deception, nonverbal behavior assessed across multiple channels is a more fruitful way to differentiate truthtellers from liars.

In fact, Dr. Matsumoto and his team of researchers at Humintell have recently published articles related to this exact topic.

Remember, there is no Pinnochio effect where one single behavior automatically means a person is lying.

Want to determine if someone is being truthful (or not)? Validated indicators are a good place to start. Those are those indicators that have been tested in research and found to reliably differentiate truth tellers from liars across studies, investigators and laboratories. And, they have also been vetted in the field.

One of the verbal indicators of deception that Dr. Matsumoto often thinks about when he watched politicians answer questions is known as “Extraneous Information.” This is information that does not answer the question posed, and may be used to justify the liars’ actions, deflect the question because they may not want to respond to that specific question, help liars distance themselves from the act of lying or the content of the lie, or aid liars in exerting control over the interview.

Of course extraneous information, like any indicator of truthfulness or deception, is never failproof or foolproof as a sure sign of truth telling or lying. But they do give signs to the mental state of the individual, and when used correctly in a probing, strategized interview can be very effective in helping investigators to ferret out truth from lies.

The post Detecting Deception in Politics first appeared on Humintell.

The post Detecting Deception in Politics appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

During a trip to my local garden centre, I noticed this sign for sale. We didn’t buy it, but I did mention to my wife that this statement is often correct and promised that I would write an article about why that is. So here it is! The theory that the longer the explanation the bigger the lie does indeed have research attached to it, with many eminent psychologists suggesting there are often more verbal than visual clues to deceit when the stakes (consequences) are high.

When you’re assessing credibility (or a lack of it) listen for someone struggling to recall very basic information and keep an ear out for someone giving you an abundance of irrelevant information rather than focusing on what actually happened, as this form of ‘attempted behavioral control’ helps to keep you distracted away from wherein their story the deceit occurs (as in the longer the story, the more creative they’ve been in hiding the truth from you).

Furthermore, as the irrelevant details mount up, this can make them appear ‘chatty’ and can give the impression that they seem ‘credible’, especially if their delivery is flamboyant and well spoken. It’s worth remembering that many liars simply do get away with their deceit because their target is more focused on LOOKING for deceit (such as observing for eye movements/aversion) and may simply forget to actively LISTEN to the actual spoken content.

With this in mind, when you are assessing the credibility of a story, be sure to remember that skilled and habitual (practiced) liars will often conceal information rather than present false information as if it were true. This method is frequently preferred by liars, as this allows them to tell the truth up to the certain point, skip over their indiscretion (the lie) and resume telling the truth. This is known as a ‘text bridge’ and these are key words that can indicate that there might be a gap in their story, I.e. the information they don’t want you to know. Key words such as ‘and then’, ‘shortly after’, ‘later on’, ‘the next thing I remember’ all help span time and skip over and keep something hidden without sounding suspicious. The next time you have your suspicions, shrewdly listen for these words, they could help you pin point an area which they have intentionally left out.

A special mention needs to be given to eye movements. Focusing on eye movements will seriously impair your ability to detect deceit. Modern day research (Vrij, Porter, DePaulo) have all concluded that the eyes themselves do not provide reliable information regarding deception. Examining the wrong cues to deception could have serious ramifications, such as labelling a truth teller as a liar because they habitually looked ‘up and right’ when in fact their statement was honest. Many lie catching guides enthusiastically claim that eye movements can reveal the difference between a fictitious event and a truthful memory; however these claims have again been widely disputed by eminent professors of psychology.

Remember, truthful people simply convey facts. Liars have to remember the facts, distort or conceal them & appear credible in their delivery.

Never forget, the devil is in the details!

The post The Devil is in the Details. A Guide to Lie Catching. appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.