Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Spotting Lies: A How to Guide

Experts are not good at detecting deception according to the The Huffington Post and new research conducted by Professor of Applied Social Psychology, Aldert Vrij.

Dr. Vrij reveals that with an average accuracy rate of 56.6%, lies go undetected more than 1/3 of the time!

His latest research suggests that even trained professionals such as police and customs officers are no better than the average person at detecting deception.

Why are trained professionals not good at lie detection?

There are a plethora of reasons why professionals may not display a high accuracy rate for deception detection.  Perhaps,  they are only trained in one area of deception detection such as body language (excluding, micro facial expressions and/or statement analysis).  Perhaps, they are just not trained often enough, that is there is an infrequency to their trainings; therefore, the review of their skills.  It could even be that they were simply not trained properly and there is a misapplication of the skills that they learned.

Detecting inconsistencies in nonverbal behavior (including facial expressions and microexpressions) is a crucial skill that needs to be practiced often.  As with many trainings, including Humitnell’s micro expression training, one should re-visit it often to remain agile in the core principles of that training.

We do not expect our trained soldiers or law enforcement agents to go out into the field without continuing to practice gun safety and execution.  Like many other things in life, deception detection techniques should be practiced  to be able to accurately and efficiently sift the truth from the lies.

Dr. Vrij goes on, in “How to Tell Who is Lying to You”,  to note the two main ways to be a better lie detector are:

1.  The Baseline Method:  There is  no one behavior that is universally characteristic of liars, but when any particular individual starts to stray from the truth, various cognitive, emotional and physiological processes kick in, which are  possible to detect.  However, you can only spot these if you already have the ‘baseline’ of how someone behaves when they are telling the truth

2.  Devil’s Advocate:  Interviewees are first asked questions inviting them to argue in favor of their personal view. This is followed by a Devil’s Advocate question that asks interviewees to argue against their personal view.   The Devil’s Advocate Question is actually what they really believe, but are covering up.  As we think more deeply about, and are more able to generate, reasons that support rather than oppose our beliefs, this leaks out during the answer to the Devil’s Advocate Question.

Dr. Matsumoto’s new book, Nonverbal Communication:  Science and Applications, marries the two worlds of knowing how to detect deception with putting that knowledge into practice.

What do you think about the information in this blog?
What is the top pertinent point that you would share with someone else?

Follow-up to Truth Tellers and Liars

Below are some comments regarding the videos of two mothers, Diane Downs & Erin Runnion, whose children were involved in horrific circumstances.

In our original blog on this topic, Humintell noted that it is extremely important to focus on all nonverbal behaviors, particularly facial expressions of emotion. We emphasize looking for inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal statements, which we call hot spots.

As you seen in the videos, there is a HUGE discrepancy in the the demeanor of Erin Runnion and Diane Downs.

Downs often seems distant, emotionless and is even smiling in the interview during parts where it is very inappropriate. Her facial expressions tell a much different story than her words.

Fast forward to where Downs is talking about blood coming out of her daughter’s mouth. Downs actually smiles when talking about this subject numerous times- highly inappropriate and inconsistent with a grieving mother. She is obviously a very disturbed individual.

In Runnion’s confrontation with her daughter’s killer at his sentencing, there is a lot of raw emotion and you can see the pain and anguish on her face. There really is no mistaking how Runnion truly feels about the situation. Even from this side view, you can see clearly that her brows are pulled up and together and her lips are curled down- a true expression of sadness and distress.

Do you see something we missed?  What are your observations?

Follow-Up to Truth & Deception: Hone Your Skills

Below are some comments regarding the videos, of Mark Hacking & Susan Smith, individuals whose loved ones went missing.

In our original blog on this topic, Humintell noted that at times truth and deception have similar qualities and can be very hard to distinguish from one anther.  There are many things to take into consideration when trying to evaluate truthfulness and detect deception.

We emphasize looking for inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal statements, which we call Hot Spots.

As you seen in the videos from our original post, there is a very prominent discrepancy between Susan Smith’s words and her facial expressions.  However, with Mark Hacking it is a little more subtle.

Hacking admitted to murdering his wife as she slept, while duping the public into believe that she had disappeared while she had been running early in the morning.  He had been lying to his wife and everyone else about attending and graduating from the University of Utah and being accepted to medical school.  It is purported that his wife, Lori, found out, which is why she was murdered.

To many people, Hacking appeared to be genuinely sad.

However, sometimes what you don’t see could be a red flag

Hacking’s voice doesn’t consistently crack throughout the interview(relly in just one spot) , compared to other individuals pleading for their loved one’s return. There is no eyebrow movement when he starts to “cry” at the end. He’s not smiling (which you can contrast with Smith who has a slight smirk throughout her video), but he doesn’t really look genuinely sad either.

He seems fairly emotionless and coupled with all the other signs (or lack there of) it is not very convincing for a trained observer.   Even with his sunglasses on, the man standing behind Hacking has a more genuine expressions of sadness on his face.

Smith, on the other hand, tries to seem sad but it is not believable.  When she “cries” at the very beginning and her voice cracks, there are no true signs of sadness found in her facial expressions.  There are no tears, and her eyebrows are not raised.

In slow motion it is obvious that she is smiling especially in the middle of the video when she says she “hasn’t seen anything”.  Her eyes seem to be smiling trying to hold back the fact that she can’t keep a straight face because she knows she is lying.  At the end of the video you can even see a slight smirk.  Her facial expressions obviously do not match her words or tone.

It is obvious from these videos that some people are better at faking emotions and controlling emotions than others, both Mark Hacking and Susan Smith were convicted of murder.

This is why it is so difficult to become very competent at detecting deception especially without continuous practice and training.

NOTE:  You can watch the videos in slow motion if you pause the video and then use your right keyboard arrow to move forward.

Did you see anything else? Share your comments on these cases with the Humintell Community!