As the theory of cognitive embodiment continues to gain support, it turns out to also support body language as viable cues to state of mind. Check out this article from Scientific American.
As the theory of cognitive embodiment continues to gain support, it turns out to also support body language as viable cues to state of mind. Check out this article from Scientific American.
Any investigator who is tasked with solving a case must first understand their job is to seek the truth. This may sound obvious, but it deserves mentioning. When interviewing a witness, victim or suspect it is important to understand that how you ask a question may have a significant impact on the answer you receive. Phrasing a question a certain way can strongly influence the response. By mere suggestion it is possible to alter the memory of a subject.
Memory does not work like a video camera. It does not record the information in its entirety. There are different kinds of memory. Episodic memory is that in which we remember an event. This is the type of memory in play during most investigations. When a subject observes an event, the event is encoded into memory. Not every detail gets encoded. Those details can be filled in by the creation of the subject’s own narrative. In other words, he may make up the details or guess. This is where the suggestion of an interviewer may alter the subject’s recollection of events.
Psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted an experiment in 1974 to test the level of influence the way a question is asked can have on the response. They asked people to estimate the speed of two vehicles involved in a crash. People are generally not very good at estimating speeds unless they have had specialized training, which is usually reserved for police officers.
The study concluded that the use of harsher descriptions of the accident lead to the witness stating the speeds were higher. When asked how fast the red car was going when it “contacted” the blue car, the witnessed stated the speed to be significantly slower than when the term “smashed” was used in the place of “contacted”. Other terms used were “hit”, “bumped” and “collided”. Each of these terms brought an increased estimation of the speed.
The chart below outlines the affect the descriptive term had on the respondent’s estimation of the speed at the time of the accident.
As you can see, the more intense the description of the accident was, the higher the speed was estimated to be. When “contacted” was used, the average estimated speed was 31 mph. When “smashed” was used, the average response was 41 mph.
Furthermore, those witnesses that were asked the question with the “smashed” term used were far more likely to recall the damage to the vehicles as more severe. In the video the subjects had watched there was no broken glass. In response to the follow up question “Did you see any broken glass?” 16 out of 34 subjects in the “smashed” group stated that they did see broken glass. The control group (they had not been asked about the speed of the cars at the time of the accident) had 44 state no to the broken glass and 6 said yes there was broken glass (see how reliable eyewitness memory is?). Those subjects in the “hit” group had 7 yes responses and 43 no responses. (Loftus and Palmer, 1974)
As this study indicates, it is important to keep your line of questioning as neutral as possible (if the truth is what you are after). Avoid the leading questions. The truth is what the professional investigator is after, and in order to get the truth it is imperative that witness testimony is not tainted with poor or unfair questioning strategies.
The necessity to rationalize our choices makes them easier to live with. If we want a piece of chocolate, we simply remind ourselves that chocolate has a ton of good qualities. To wit:
• Chocolate contains lecithin that a beneficial effect on cholesterol levels in
• Chocolate is rich in polyphenols. A polifenol is an antioxidant
that reduces inflammation and protects against free radicals and slows down the combustion inside cells.
• Chocolate is rich in magnesium. Magnesium promotes energy metabolism, nerve transmission and muscle function.
• There is evidence that dark chocolate lowers blood pressure.
• Chocolate contains flavonoids. Flavonoids have a protective effect against heart disease.
• The taste of chocolate experience ensures the production of endorphins. Endorphin
creates a euphoric feeling and suppresses pain.
• Chocolate contains phenyl ethylamine. Phenyl ethylamine can act as a mood lifter.
Chocolate is also high in fat and sugar. If you are overweight and should be lowering your caloric intake, you should probably be avoiding chocolate bars. But since chocolate has so many good qualities, you can eat the chocolate and then tell yourself it is ok- after all, chocolate is good for you. This works even though you know the chocolate is counter-productive to your real goal, which is weight loss. In order to avoid guilt, you rationalize the decision and at least on a superficial level, go on merrily with your day.
But what really just occurred here? According to Dr. David Leiberman, there are three distinct psychological forces at work. The body drive, the ego drive and the soul drive. These three forces are constantly battling each other. The body drive wants to do what makes you feel good, such as over eating and over sleeping. The ego drive wants to do what makes you look good, such as buying clothes or a car that is beyond your financial means. The soul drive wants to do what is good for you in the long run, such as getting your assignment done (furthering your work or school goals) on time or physically taking care of yourself (David Leiberman, 2008).
Rationalization comes into play when either the body drive or the ego drive win the battle and we then tell ourselves that it was actually the soul drive that won. In our chocolate example, the body drive won. Then, when we cite all the positive qualities of chocolate as the real reason we at the chocolate bar, we are trying to assign the victory to our soul drive.
The reason we ultimately feel guilty about rationalized choices is that we know we have lied to ourselves, and we have a negative opinion of our deception. This is also known as dissonance. There is ample research that shows humans have a strong tendency to make decisions emotionally, and then rationalize the decision with logic.
The person who resists the chocolate and sticks to their diet will likely feel much better about himself than the one who gives in. This person is exhibiting will power, and experiencing the victory for his soul drive. The person whose soul drive wins the majority of battles is the person with high self esteem. It stands then, that if you want to have high self esteem, avoid rationalizing. Make the right choice, which only you know what it is, and you will feel better both in the short term and the long term.
This post is a continuation in theme of an earlier post in which I touch on a topic that is important in deception detection- recognizing indicators of truth.
In this article, however, I am going to take a glance at the strategic side of truth-seeking and where it holds an advantage over focusing solely on the many indicators of deception.
Research has shown that under heavy cognitive load (hard thinking or concentration),glucose levels in the brain dramatically decrease, reducing the ability to think in depth. Heavy cognitive load is not realistically sustainable. It is painful and distracting.
To relieve the pain, we resort to intuitive thinking. Intuitive thinking draws upon associative memory. This is significant in this sense.
In an interview situation, if you are concentrating heavily on trying to look for every single indicator of deception, every deceptive word and every inconsistency, you may overtax your capabilities. When our concentration gets too intense, we inevitably fall back on our default judgment, as this is much easier on the brain. It is important to understand that the experienced interviewer and deception detection professional will likely spot the indicators with considerably less effort. It is just as important to understand that any professional investigator worth his salt also understands the goal of the interview is the truth.
In a study of eight judges considering more than 1,100 applications for parole in Israel, it was learned that parole board judges were more likely to grant parole at the start of the day, and after breaks for a morning snack and lunch. These are the times when glucose levels are optimal. The judges awarded parole 65% of the time during these time frames. Each subsequent hearing session tended to bring less chance of getting parole, dropping to 0% on occasions and rising again to the 65% level after the next food break. (1.S. Danziger, J. Levav, L. Avnaim-Pesso. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018033108)
While interviews and deception detection need not be as tasking as sitting on a parole board, the results of the study should be of use to interviewers. As truth seekers, we need to be conscious of factors that may affect our ability to be fair and partial. Intense concentration on trying to observe any and all of the seemingly thousands of indicators of deception will likely be taxing, and this will tempt us to resort to associative, or default thinking. This may impair our ability to be fair, and that is unacceptable.
The signs and indicators of truthful people are important to recognize. When these cease, is when you should, and inevitably will, observe indicators of sensitivity or deception. In short, looking for signs of truthfulness may be considerably less taxing mentally. For indicators of truth, I list a few here https://ryanemann.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/want-to-catch-a-liar-look-for-the-truth/
Would you lie for someone else? You probably would under the right circumstances. Like all decisions, the choice to lie whether it is about something you did or something someone else did, is a risk versus reward decision. There are many circumstances in which the choice to lie is completely valid.
But what about those incidents when someone lies for another person without any readily apparent reason? What about the risk and no visible reward? According to Fincham and Jaspars’ 1979 study, there is a strong tendency to punish people for the intentions behind wrongdoing (such as lying) instead of the actual offense in cases in which they aren’t the same. This is consistent with what is known as the attribution theory. This would also indicate why someone may lie for another.
If your best friend were in big trouble because he stole a soda and got caught, would you back up his bogus story that he “thought” he paid for it, or “found” it or whatever excuse he could come up with? Depending on your level of friendship, you just might. After all, it is expected that even if your ruse does not work, you will not get in any trouble because what you intended might be perceived as some as inherently noble- you were just doing the “loyal” thing. With this in mind, you never really faced any true risk in this risk versus reward situation. The reward was helping your friend, and maybe even feeling good about doing a “noble” task. The risk was virtually zero. Consistent with Fincham and Jaspars’ research, you will most likely be judged on your intentions- helping a friend- instead of the lie you told. This is a powerful factor.
But what about more serious offenses, like robbery or even murder? The same forces are still at play, but the expectation of reprieve for the person who is lying for his robbing or murdering friend should diminish. His aura of nobility will erode in the eyes of the accuser, but his actions still may be plausible- “I wanted to be a good friend”. To be clear, it is very doubtful that if the two conspirators were simply acquaintances, the second person will very unlikely lie for the first. The stronger the bond between the two, the more likely they are to lie for each other.
There is another factor to be considered as well. Immediacy. The human mind has a tendency to create its own reality and has only a casual relationship with logic. Research has shown that most people (80%) will accept a $5 gift today over a $10 gift 30 days after the offer. The closer the situation is to the now, the more power it exerts over you. A friend that needs your help now, legitimate or not, will have more weight on your decision than the possible punishment that may occur some time in the future. The punishment is not even certain, the friend in need, however, is. These are strong social and psychological influences that not everybody can overcome.
A third factor is transferred responsibility. Lying for another is often a decision made without believing that we have truly done anything wrong. When our friend desperately begs us to lie for them, we can lie for them without truly bearing the responsibility for the act. This eliminates much of the guilt problem. Once the gig is up and we have been busted, the truth again becomes our friend and we can confess and be expected to be forgiven to some degree. You see this with kids quite often. Little Suzy lied for Little Johnny and when caught, Suzy proclaims “He made me do it!”. Suzy never felt she was truly doing anything wrong, and had an out if she got caught.
It is important to keep in mind factors that alter the decision making process. As previously mentioned, if the friendship is weak, the likelihood of getting someone to lie for you diminishes. Also, if the offense is morally apprehensible, such as rape or child molestation, it is highly unlikely that a morally normal associate will help, no matter the friendship. The risk clearly outweighs the reward and the decision is equally clear.
In this article I am going to address some possible scenarios that can occur at work in which you would like to know if a coworker, employee or boss is a friend or enemy. Since we can’t go around accusing others at work of being liars or thieves without substantial evidence, it is important that we take a look at alternatives to give us a higher statistical probability of avoiding the pitfall of believing a liar. I will take a look at three possible scenarios that can occur and outline a simple strategy to help get to the truth.
Let’s say, for example, you suspect your coworker of being a snake in the grass. You would like to know if he is in it for the team, or if he is out to submarine you. A tactic you can use is to ask him for his advice on an important assignment you have been given. Tell him you are considering a strategy that you secretly know is a horrible idea, and he should know it is a horrible idea as well. If he agrees with your doomed strategy, knowing full well it is a bad idea, then he is not in it for the team. He is allowing you to proceed and fail without regard for how it affects the team, instead opting to further his own agenda. Now you know you cannot trust him going forward. The psychological principle in play here is motivation. People will rarely pass up an opportunity to further their plan.
In another scenario, let’s say you are the owner of a small business. As with most small businesses, you are on a tight budget and have limited resources. You suspect one of your few employees of stealing from the register. In order to find out if your suspicions have merit, you can use the following approach. Address the topic with the employee directly without accusing her and see what happens immediately after you bring the topic of theft up. Start with something like “You know, I can’t believe some people think they can steal from their boss and not get caught.” Now look for signs of agreement or discomfort. This is a powerful tool that reveals a suspect’s motivation. If she is guilty, she will naturally assume you are accusing her. If she is innocent, she will agree and further the discussion. The important point is to look for defensiveness and decline in comfort and confidence. This will give you a strong indication of your employee’s level of guilt. The psychological principle in play here is guilt. Guilty people have a tendency to fall prey to a psychological phenomenon known as the “illusion of transparency”. Once accused, the guilty will fear that the accuser can see through the lies and know her current state of mind.
In a third scenario, you suspect your mailroom manager of being involved in a lapping scheme, which is a common form of skimming. (It is undertaken by mail room employees who are responsible for receiving payments. They skim the checks received, depositing the checks into their personal accounts and falsify company account records in order to cover the theft.) Since, he is the manager he has a good knowledge of the workings of the mail room. He understands the process. The strategy you can employ is to ask him for his advice. State “You are the mailroom manager. You know this operation better than anyone. If you were to steal from the company, how would you go about it?” Now he can take the bait. If he is innocent, he will most likely tell you the easiest plan, the plan most likely to succeed. In this case, the lapping scheme. If he is guilty, he will want to draw attention away from his lapping scheme and might come up with a more complex, convoluted response or one that will not involve lapping schemes at all. He does not want you to look at that possibility. The clue that he might be guilty will come in the form that he does not give you the obvious answer but instead opts to redirect your thought process away from the crime that he is committing. Of course, if you do not know where the weakness lies within the mailroom, you should educate yourself before questioning the manager, otherwise you will not know if he is giving you the appropriate response or not. The psychological principle in play here is fear. The manager fears being discovered as a thief. When we are threatened by something, we fear it. Whether we like it or not, we have a strong tendency to distance ourselves from anything that is threatening. Being exposed as a thief is very threatening, as is the prospect of being fired or even arrested. The manager must protect himself and not allow you to know what he has done.
Keep in mind, that none of these strategies are fool proof. There are no guarantees, but they can help you by increasing your odds of success. Beware aware of which psychological principles are relevant, as this will help you choose a strategy that allows you to find the truth. To be sure, many psychological principles or emotions will be present, but there will be one primary emotion that forces the individual to act in a particular manner. Knowing which emotion is in play is important information in helping you strategize. I recommend you read Dr. David Leiberman’s book, “You Can Read Anyone”. Dr. Leiberman outlines several psychological principles and strategies in this highly effective book.
Also, for a great resource on Body Language and Deception, check out http://www.bodylanguagelearning.org.uk/. It is full of articles by respected and accomplished experts in the field.
Yesterday, January 3rd, 2014, High School Football player Gerald Willis III, a top recruit, announced on live television the college football program of his choice. He is from New Orleans and his mother is a huge Louisiana State University fan (LSU). I knew she is a LSU fan because a few years ago her other son, Landon Collins was a top recruit and chose to go to the University of Alabama against her wishes. She stated she was a LSU fan. Willis had narrowed his choice down to two final colleges: The University of Florida and LSU.
As I watched this, I knew which school Willis was going to choose. Mom wasn’t happy, which means he was going to Florida. Her body language clearly indicated she wasn’t happy. Since she is a LSU fan, it gave away the ending- Willis is going to be a Gator.
Willis is a good player and will do well at Florida, which has an elite defense. LSU, however, is a great team and will not be short of amazing players either.