Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

The Humintell Blog January 8, 2019

Microexpressions Differentiate Truths from Lies about Future Malicious Intent

Finally! The first scientific evidence that microexpressions are a Key to Deception Detection!

While there has been a general consensus that microexpressions play a significant role in deception detection for decades, in reality there had never been a research study published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that documented that claim.

Until now.

New and exciting evidence comes from Humintell’s own Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang in a recently published paper in Frontiers in Psychology. In their study, they sought to determine whether microexpressions could reliably indicate deception in a mock crime experiment. Ultimately, they found that microexpressions served as a helpful guide both in detecting deceit and also in evaluating future misconduct.

In actuality, previous studies did try to document the effect of microexpressions as deception indicators. But past research did not assess microexpressions effectively. An experiment was conducted featuring a mock crime. Here, participants were told to either lie or tell the truth during a simulated interview. Both the prescreening interview and the actual experiment were modeled as closely as possible on real-world law enforcement procedures.

Because past research has found that microexpressions are universal culturally, participants included both U.S. born European-Americans and Chinese immigrants. Throughout the interviews, each participant was filmed and their expressions closely analyzed.

After performing these mock interviews, facial behaviors were hand coded by experts to determine whether microexpressions were present. Emotions were then grouped as either negative, such as fear and anger, or positive, such as happiness.

It turned out that liars and truthtellers had starkly different expressions manifestations, with liars showing markedly more negative microexpressions. Not only does this help show that negative microexpressions can be used to determine deception, but the average duration of these microexpressions was relatively constant as between 0.4 and 0.5 seconds.

This study, then, not only provided the first scientific evidence that microexpressions can help detect deception, but it also helped foster further research in looking critically at what constitutes a microexpression.

And it may be a good time for you to participate and learn how to detect deception yourself!

READ THE FULL ABSTRACT AND DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE

Filed Under: Deception, Science

The Humintell Blog December 26, 2018

Santa Claus and Deception

santa-claus-christmasHow merry is it to lie to your kids about Santa Claus?

While some parents worry about the impact of lying to their children about this popular Christmas legend, it’s possible that it may be better for them in the long run. This is what Dr. Kristen Dunfield, a professor of developmental psychology, argued in a recent blog. Certainly, concerns have their role, but she contends that the process of figuring out the truth can be good for their development.

In fact, fantastical beliefs, like that in Santa Claus, can lead to certain positive developments in a child’s psyche. This can include what are known as counterfactual reasoning skills, which basically involve a child’s ability to think creatively and outside the box.

There is not even much a parent has to do to foster this belief. As Dr. Dunfield discusses, belief in Santa is overwhelmingly popular amongst children, but they tend to figure out the truth by the age of eight or so. This means that not only does the burden of promoting the myth not fall on the parent, but neither does the duty of dispelling it.

This very process of coming to understand that Santa is not real can also be helpful from a developmental perspective. By figuring out that magical actions are not really possible, children come to develop and apply critical thinking to the world around them.

That very method of critical thinking is often on display when older children begin testing the mythos, asking difficult questions about how Santa can manage to circumnavigate the globe, for instance.

The goal of a parent, for Dr. Dunfield, does not have to be about propping up the story or about being the Grinch who dispels the happy story. Instead, parents can encourage their children’s creative impulses, asking them to think through their questions for themselves.

For instance, she recommends “simply direct[ing] the question back to them, allowing your child to come up with explanations for themselves.” Rather than just answering, a parent can respond “I don’t know, how do you think the sleigh flies?”

This may help many of us with the dilemma of whether to lie to our children. While deception in the household is common, that does not mean it is particularly desirable. However, by simply allowing children to come to understand the world for themselves, the problem can really be turned to their cognitive advantage.

One could even make the argument that this sort of process can help bond a family together, discussing the question of Santa and using the mythos as a sort of family-based holiday tradition. Not only could this be a fun way to spend time with a child, but it can also help forge family cohesion over the season.

This may be especially important, given that the ways in which we spend the holidays can have a significant impact on how pleasant the time is. For instance, we discussed in a past blog how family rituals significantly increased feelings of life satisfaction and reduce social loneliness. Another blog focused on how social interaction, and not overreliance on gift consumption, can significantly predict happier holidays.

However, if you are concerned that you are being lied to about Santa Claus, maybe this would be a good time to check out our deception training program.

Filed Under: Deception

The Humintell Blog November 15, 2018

Complex Deceptive Behaviors

A great deal of popular discussion of how to detect deception rests on specific, isolated factors like eye contract, but the reality is a bit more complex.

This is the case that Humintell’s Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang made in a 2017 study published in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. In this experimental analysis, they had participants engage in a simulated investigative interview which, after being recorded, was analyzed to see which deceptive nonverbal behaviors were exhibited and, most importantly, in what combinations.

Importantly, while many previous studies have found that certain nonverbal behaviors are reliable indicators of deception, these findings have often been difficult to replicate. These studies have focused on vocal fluctuations, body language, and gestures, all of which do demonstrate underlying emotions.

However, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang emphasize that, because of the complex emotions involved in deception, analyzing just one behavior at a time seems problematic. This is why, in the current study, they sought to see whether looking at clusters of behaviors may help solve this puzzle.

In order to do this, they recruited a series of participants who were all asked to engage in a mock crime simulation. These participants were given the opportunity to “steal” a $100 check, with some told to do so and some to refrain. Both groups were then assigned to mock interviews where they were either told to lie or confess.

With this premise set up, the exciting analysis work began. Each interview was recorded and then analyzed, frame by frame, with machine-learning informed algorithms which sought to categorize individual frames based on certain emotions, including many basic emotions like anger, disgust, fear, happiness, etc.

This allowed the researchers to calculate exactly which emotions tended to be the most common during the interview.  Then, they hand coded a series of nonverbal behaviors, including head shakes, nods, and shoulder shrugs.  This analysis was then combined with sophisticated assessments of vocal pitch and volume, helping create a comprehensive account of the subtle behaviors involved in the interview process.

When comparing these behaviors to whether or not the interviewee was lying, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang found that it was clusters of non-verbal behaviors that most reliably predicted deception. Liars tended to have fewer head nods and greater changes in vocal pitch, though with a lower average.

Importantly, the types of questions, be they open-ended or more closed had significant impacts.  Liars tended to have even lower pitches during open-ended questions, for example.

These findings have significant ramifications for anybody attempting to detect deception. While many of us are told to focus on individual behaviors, like eye contact or closed postures, these alone cannot fully explain the situation.

Instead, deception seems based on these clusters of behaviors which can be even more difficult to determine. This is definitely on reason why Humintell offers advanced deception detection classes which can be helpful for anyone, but especially any of you who make it your business of conducting lie detection interviews.

Filed Under: Deception, Nonverbal Behavior

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 19
  • Next Page »

About

Welcome to an aggregator for blogs about social engineering and related fields. Feel free to take a look around, and make sure to visit the original sites.

If you would like to suggest a site or contact us, use the links below.

Contact

  • Contact
  • Suggest a Site
  • Remove a Site

© Copyright 2025 Social Engineering Blogs · All Rights Reserved ·