An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields
We’ve been talking about new microexpressions research for the last two weeks, so we’ll all benefit from Dr. David Matsumoto’s own insights.
In this new video, Dr. Matsumoto discussed his recent article on microexpressions and the importance of precisely studying microexpressions and their neurological correlates. He emphasizes the striking difference in neurological patterns between expressions at or above 200 ms and those below.
Last week we wrote about the importance of distinguishing micro and macro expressions, but we passed too quickly over deception detection.
Microexpressions differ from their longer lasting counterparts in many ways, but one of the most salient is the fact that they can betray underlying emotions. The fleeting microexpression can show anger or surprise where someone may be trying to conceal it, and effective deception detection can often involve noticing these microexpressions, as hard as that might be for a layperson.
As Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang point out, there are many factors that make people better at deception detection. These include personality features like openness to experience and conscientiousness but also empathy and emotional regulation.
One of the major takeaways from the study we blogged on last week was the more precise definition of what microexpressions are, committing to seeing them as incredible fleeting and at least under half a second.
This was elaborated on in a 2018 study by Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang which looked at microexpressions as keys to differentiating truth from lies, operationalizing this particular definition of the length of microexpressions. They point out that previous research found mixed results in connecting microexpressions to deception detection, but that such research had failed to rigorously define how long a microexpression is.
Much of this past literature, though it found the potential for microexpressions, was that it did not properly define microexpressions based on observations of how they actually function. Some of this research categorized microexpressions as lasting for up to four seconds!
Such a revised definition makes a great deal of sense when looking at deception detection. Much of the attempt to conceptualize microexpressions comes from trying to see their role in showing spontaneous and concealed expressions. Longer durations are less likely to be signs of repressed and concealed emotions.
This 2018 study then sought to look at the role of microexpressions in deception detection given this more rigorous definition. First, they looked at whether microexpressions under half a second occurred and if they could reliably distinguish truth from deception. They also looked at longer expressions to see if these could be seen as consistently spontaneous.
They found that such expressions were generally frequent and acted as reliable indicators of deception, much more so than expressions longer than a second. Interesting, very short expressions of less than 0.3 seconds were not helpful indicators.
We are curious what our readers have to say about this, however. Do you notice these fleeting expressions? Do you think that they are uniquely distinct from longer expressions? Please comment and let us know what you think!
Lie detection is tough for a lot of people, but why do some people happen to just be better at it than others?
This is an important question not just in our attempts to understand how to detect deception but also in efforts to better understand the role of emotional recognition in lie detection. A new study in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin sought to disentangle various features of emotional recognition as a way of explaining variations in participants’ abilities to detect deception.
The study authors look at several variables that could explain variation in deception detection. One is “Theory of Mind” which looks at an individual’s general ability to read others’ mental states. Similarly, they looked at emotional intelligence which, while similar to Theory of Mind, focuses more on interpersonal competency and emotional recognition.
It is important to distinguish truth detection from deception detection. This should make sense intuitively, as we often get a clear intuitive sense that we are being lied to, but that doesn’t mean we always have an affirmative sense of another person’s truth-telling. Instead, we often just don’t feel lied to and conclude they are telling the truth.
They also distinguished between “high-stakes” and “low-stakes” deception, under the hypothesis that behaviors would be significantly different between the two. Namely, they note that past research has found that people tend to believe others most in low-stakes scenarios, while they become more discerning when the states get higher.
In order to explore the relationships between those topics, the study authors performed an experiment on over 100 participants. In the experiment, each participant was asked to review a series of videos of individuals speaking to high profile events, such as cases of alleged murder. Half of these were incidents of deception.
After watching each video, the participants were asked to determine who was telling the truth and who was not. Because emotional intelligence and other variables were measured by a pre-treatment series of questionnaires and tests, the researchers were able to explore statistical relationships between those emotional traits and rates of accuracy.
Overall, they did find that truth and deception detection were different as suspected, with different predictors proving significant for each. For instance, Theory of Mind accounted for much deception detection variance and emotionally intelligent participants often felt too much sympathy for liars.
This distinction seems rooted in the need for detached reasoning in detecting deception. While recognizing and understanding emotions is helpful , it often must be paired with a calculated and logical approach. This can be difficult for those with high levels of empathy, even though they tend to be good at noticing emotions like guilt.
Hopefully, this gives you some more information on what makes a good lie detector, but also come check out our new website dedicated to deception detection for more!