Human behavior is unique, so generalizing veracity cues is erroneous, if knowing the difference between truth and fiction is important. Think of a few instances when you would want to know the truth. Job interview? First date? Reading of a will? You get the idea…
Unlike jellyfish, humans do not clone themselves, but our words can sting. What we say and do are unique. Our verbal and nonverbal communication skills cannot be duplicated. Humans are one-of-a-kind communicators. We also like short-cuts. Not only were our brains created to process and store large amounts of information but also to retrieve information about the past, present, and future! Yes, the future. Speculation is the result of gathering past information to predict a future situation.
I say this jokingly, but I think my brain is constantly saying “Keep it simple, stupid.” (K.I.S.S.) I will admit, there have been days when brain overload seemed imminent. Cognitive load (brain stress) occurs, because of mental conflict, a mass input of information, or new and different surroundings, to name a few. As I mentioned before, our brain likes to take short-cuts, and our brain also likes to avoid cognitive load. The result is sometimes deceptive or incomplete answers. For example, what is the best way to avoid conflict? Answer: Don’t mention details that would initiate or result in conflict. This is also known as omission. What if you need to be convincing to save face or prevent someone’s feelings from getting hurt? Answer: Fabricate a convincing scenario based on the truth, or simply embellish the truth a bit.
Although I am not encouraging deceptive practices, white lies do sometimes serve a purpose. But what if knowing the TRUTH is paramount? Then do not seek to identify universal lie detection cues. Although many people exhibit similar behavioral traits, these cues do not always represent the same trait in each person. For more information on indirect methods to quantitative deception detection, visit https://MindSleuth.us Transparency may disclose information that should be kept secret, or disclose valuable information for the greater good. Either way, a noninvasive indirect method now exists allowing a glimpse into the mind’s cognitive processing.
How do you get out of an uncomfortable situation without telling a bold-faced lie? You commit the act of paltering, deceiving while making truthful statements. Interrogators refer to paltering as acts of omission. Damaging information is not mentioned. Only truthful statements are produced; therefore, avoiding the act of fabricating a cover-up story.
So, in your playbook of schema, how does paltering affect behavior? Mimicking a template or following a social framework is easy if cognitive load is not involved. Paltering, however, requires the “sender” to plan and project only truthful emotions and messages, creating cognitive dissonance, a.k.a. mental stress. To the untrained person, paltering is rarely identified as deception, since we typically “want” to hear the truth.
Anyone who has ever testified in court as a witness has sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Does this mean all testimonies given in a court of law are 100% truthful? Well, the intent is usually to tell the truth, but testimonies sometimes turn and go down a slippery slope. Honorable intentions are not necessarily impervious to deception. Knowing the difference between deception and a lie is a good place to start.
During the art of persuasion, deception may interject by way of fabrications, exaggerations, omission of details, misleading information, or speculation. Lies, on the other hand, are intentional falsifications. Think of a mountain with steep north and south sides, and sloping east and west sides. Denials are deliberate falsifications or lies, located on the opposite, steep side of the mountain, from truthful statements. Fabricated statements may contain both truthful and false elements; therefore, placing fabrications on the sloping east/west sides of the mountain.
A person can begin a testimony on the truthful side of the mountain and easily move to the steep east or west sides of deception, by using speculation, omission, misleading, and exaggeration (S.O.M.E.) of details or wording. As an expert witness, be careful not to accidentally slip.
Coined by David Ingvar, memories of the future, refers to our intentions. As proactive beings, we make plans and follow them to guide our behavior. While gathering snippets of our past experiences, we try to anticipate outcomes of possible future actions. Therefore, we depend on these schemas to direct our actions, resulting in desired behavioral outcomes that do not imitate past experiences or present realities.
The general consensus has been that deceptive behavior is more cognitively demanding than truthful behavior. However, more recent research is pointing to truthful intent as more cognitively demanding than false intent. How so? You may ask. Conceptualizing truthful intent requires not only planning for the future but also recalling memories of past actions and their corresponding behaviors and reactions. Then, our proactive selves digest this information and anticipate possible future actions with desired behavioral outcomes. Whew! Talk about cognitive load!
The prefrontal cortex, which means “at the front of the cortex”, is our corporate executive of the brain. Its tasks include, but not be limited to, executive control, conflict monitoring, emotion, and working memory. Hmm…so, maybe the cognitive load approach to interviewing is not the golden ticket, if determining veracity of intent is the interviewer’s objective.
If the above assumptions are correct, a truthful interviewee could exhibit more deceptive behavioral cues, such as pauses or exaggerated details, than a deceptive interviewee. This might occur as a result of the multi-layer cognitive processing when creating truthful ‘memories of the future’. Remember, false statements, especially fabricated statements, may contain some truthful content; however, the deceptive person’s goal is not to unintentionally reference past actions, which could associate them to a particular phenomenon in question. To prevent this from occurring, deceptive persons typically shy away from referencing memories and their associated behavioral responses, when creating false statements of intent.
Darting eyes, crossed arms, and flushed necks are all signs of deception, right? That is absolutely, positively not always the case. Mounds of research pinpoint specific cues to deception, yet most researchers agree multiple cues compared to baseline behaviors are needed to suggest acts of deception. Behavior is unique to individuals. Similarities exist, but unique identifiers, combined with content and contextual associations, are key.
Deception detectors often focus on cues for deception, while ignoring the truth bias approach. Assume everyone is telling the truth unless convinced otherwise. Know your subject’s truthful nonverbal expressions. Open-ended conversation with verifiable questions interspersed is a helpful exercise.
Truth-tellers sometimes exhibit deceptive cues in their attempt to convince others of their veracity. The lack of continuity, when recalling incidents, can be perceived as deceptive when in fact it is often quite the opposite. Non-spontaneous deceptive behavior is a rehearsal of determined incidents including temporal (time) details. Whereas, truthful comments can be sprinkled with spatial and temporal details, not always mentioned in the correct order. In other words, backtracking is common in truthful statements, where anxiety and cognitive load are factors.
Lastly, in a world of touch screens and laptops, handwritten communications are sparse. Recent research points to benefits of tell-all written statements and structured cognitive-behavioral interviews. Handwriting is brainwriting. Cognitive dissonance is not just for verbal communication anymore! Verbal pauses and various types of deception are not only visible but measurable in handwriting.