Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Deception as Human Nature Blog, Part II

By Humintell Director Dr. David Matsumoto

In this week’s blog, we continue last week’s discussion about deception as being a part of human nature.

The words “deception” and “lying” most often conjure up negative, and sometimes pretty dark images. This is reflected in not only much academic and lay writing on the topic, but also in everyday discourse. We teach our children not to lie, and in general the public believes that “lying is bad.” These negative connotations occur in research as well; with few exceptions, academics studying deception and lying have often associated them with malice, self-interest, criminal behavior, and sometimes even psychopathy and psychopathology.

But let me give a different spin on the topic. In fact, deception and lying are indeed part of human nature (as the title of this blog suggests), and not just the dark side of the mind. I believe that deception and lying are fundamental aspects of human (and animal) social life. Moreover, social life as it exists today would not exist without deception and lying. That is, social life as we know it requires a good degree of deception and lying.

From the time we are infants and children, we learn to hide our thoughts and feelings. Children are often instructed to tell Aunt Mary that they liked her gift when in fact they didn’t. Human brain maturation and development facilitates this cognitive and emotional control. One of the reasons why is because deception and lying, to some degree, grease the wheels of society and culture, allowing for interactions to occur smoothly, so that humans can be coordinated and cooperate on tasks to get things done.

One of the ways in which this occurs can be seen in the development of emotional regulation skills across the lifespan. From the time we are infants and children, we learn to regulate our emotions in order to get along with others better. As adults we don’t take swings at others whenever we’re angry, or just begin stripping our clothes off in extremely hot weather, even though we may have those impulses. We typically think of this kind of change as “development,” because people are increasingly able to hide their emotions in order to be socially appropriate. But in reality, this is a type of deception.

In fact, think about what would happen is we knew what everyone else was really thinking and feeling all the time. If this were the case, nothing in human societies and cultures as we know it would exist. Relationships among family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and even strangers require some degree of blindness to what we are all thinking and feeling. Family relationships would break down, and marriage would be difficult if not non-existent. Human social life is in fact built to some degree on a foundation of deception and lies. Human brains, cognitions, and cultures have all evolved to allow this to occur (along with many other capabilities).

Even our relatives in the animal kingdom rely on a great deal of deception for survival. Think about how chameleons change colors in their environment, or how difficult it is to see fish in water against their background. Have you ever seen a praying mantis out in the wild? These animals are very difficult to spot because they employ or have a natural deceptive ability. This ability helps them to survive (that is, not get eaten!).

Thus when we think about deception and lying, let’s not forget it’s truly a part of our human (and animal) nature, and for good reason. That’s why it’s tough to detect deception, and is one of the reasons why study after study has continually shown that human observers are usually no better than chance at judging whether a person is lying to them or not. If anyone says it’s easy, they may not have a good idea of the complexity of the issue, or how in-grained deception and lying are in our human nature.

Deception as Human Nature

Part 1 of 2

Is lying part of our fundamental human nature?

While we often like to think of lying as some sort of aberration from normal human behavior, the truth may be much less pleasant. An increasing number of studies are illustrating that lies and deception are not only ubiquitous in our everyday behavior but also serve a fundamental role in human development.

In a landmark study, Dr. Bella DePaulo, a social psychologist with the University of California, Santa Barbara, tracked the frequency with which participants lied during their day to day activities. While most of the deceptions were minor, she found that the average person lies one or two times daily!

When similar experiments are conducted across cultures, the results continue to support DePaulo’s finding of frequent deception.

The ubiquity of deception is not surprising, because lies are a natural part of children’s brain development. Dr. Kang Lee, from the University of Toronto, attempted to analyze the frequency with which toddlers are inclined to lie. While asking children to guess the identity of a hidden toy, Dr. Lee and his researchers regularly left the room, telling children not to peak at the toy. When asked if they had looked at the hidden toy, Dr. Lee found that a majority of children lied, and almost all of them did peak!

Perhaps surprisingly, the percentage of children who lied increased with age, from 30 percent of two-year olds, to 80 percent of eight-year olds. They also got better at it, learning to control their tones or even deliberately giving the wrong answer.

Similarly, lying requires some understanding of other people’s minds, so as we get older, we advance in competency. In order to lie, we must be able to deduce the knowledge and beliefs of other people, stepping into their shoes, so to speak. For example, children performed better on tests of executive function and ability to read other people, the more proficient they were at deception.

Many academics have sought deeper explanation for this troubling behavior. If deceit is closely related to normal brain development, then why did this pattern of brain development arise in the first place?

For example, Dr. Sissela Bok, of Harvard University, connects lying with evolutionary advantage. She contends that deception is rooted in efforts to gain competitive advantage by manipulating other humans: “It’s much easier to lie in order to get somebody’s money or wealth than to hit them over the head or rob a bank.”

While some of our everyday lies are based in pathology or malice, most are, in fact, told out of pure self-interest, with motives such as concealing mistakes or gaining personal and financial advantages.

Despite the prevalence of deception, most people assume that others are telling the truth. By accepting that we will sometimes be lied to, we can develop trust that is generally more advantageous than rampant cynicism.

However, people do lie all the time, and we are terrible at identifying these lies. That’s why some psychologists, like those at Humintell, work to better understand how people give themselves away with subtle expressions.

For more information on how to detect deception, check out our training tools here and our past blog post.

The Problem of Lie Detection

mri-782459_640Somewhat unsurprisingly, the movies have painted a highly inaccurate picture of the power of polygraphs, or so-called lie-detector tests. While many crime dramas showcase a seemingly miraculous technology for distinguishing truths from lies, this portrayal, itself, is far from true.

However, a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry suggests that polygraph tests may yet have a role to play, alongside MRI machines and brain scans.

Subjects were asked to write down numbers and then lie to researchers about what they had written down. While being interrogated, each participant was subjected to both an MRI scan and a polygraph test, and the researchers attempted to evaluate when they were being lied to.

While the MRI test proved to be about 24 percent more effective than the polygraph, both tests employed in tandem were able to determine deception in almost every case: a remarkable achievement.

Previous studies on MRI testing found them to be up to 90 percent accurate, while the accuracy of polygraph tests ranged wildly from perfectly accurate to completely unreliable. Even 90 percent accuracy falls short of being reliable enough for criminal proceedings. However, with this study, the doors have opened towards justifying more research into lie detection testing.

As Dr. Daniel Langleben, a study author, said: “While the jury remains out on whether fMRI will ever become a forensic tool, these data certainly justify further investigation of its potential.”

In order to appreciate the significance of this study, it is important to understand the limitations that both MRI machines and polygraph tests face in detecting deception.

MRI machines generate images of the subjects’ brains. These images allow researchers to see any physical abnormalities or changes in blood flow, revealing which parts of the brain are currently active. Some of the earliest studies on MRIs as lie detectors had subjects select playing cards and then lie about which ones they had picked. This helped narrow down which parts of the brain light up when a person is being deceitful.

However, there may be confounding factors, as these MRI images often just reveal when the subject has to think quickly about how best to respond. While this does detect lies, it may also indicate uncertainty, or it could be easily misled by a well-rehearsed story that took no effort to recite.

Based on this uncertainty, every attempt to introduce MRI-based lie detection as evidence in court proceedings has failed. In fact, they often show false signs of deception, which would be a major flaw in court proceedings.

Polygraph tests, on the other hand, work by tracking the subject’s heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and other physiological responses. Law enforcement personnel ask “control” questions that are only tangentially related to the investigation at hand, as well as “relevant” questions which probe for details on the subject’s involvement in the crime.

If the subject shows a higher heart rate when asked the “relevant” questions, this indicates that they are attempting to conceal their guilt. However, there are significant underlying problems with this approach. In fact, there is little evidence to show that these physiological responses are even unique to the practice of deception.

Between the theoretical flaws and the fact that polygraphs can be outsmarted, it is understandable that they are currently not admissible in court proceedings.

For more information on polygraph tests, read our blog here. Also, check out this post to learn how you can be a better lie-detector.