A practical guide to detecting lies

Dr. John Schafer writes a blog for Psychology Today called 'Let Their Words Do The Talking'. During November he began to publish an extended essay called 'Poor Man's Polygraph', drawn from his books 'Advanced Interviewing Techniques: Proven Strategies for Law Enforcement, Military, and Security Personnel' and 'Fibs to Facts: A Parental Guide to Effective Communication'.

The five parts of the essay (four already published as of this date, with one to come) give a very interesting look at everyday signs and symptoms that alert us to whether or not someone is telling the truth. Here are a few excerpts to illustrate his points.


Poor Man's Polygraph - Part 1 - The Well... Technique:

"When you ask someone a direct Yes or No question and they begin their answer with the word "Well," there is a high probability of deception."

Poor Man's Polygraph - Part 2 - Land of Is:

"Yes or No questions deserve "Yes" or "No" answers. When people choose not to answer "Yes" or "No," they go to the Land of Is. The Land of Is occupies the space between truth and deception. This murky area contains a labyrinth of half-truths, excuses, and suppositions. President Clinton's grand jury testimony in the Monica Lewinski investigation inspired the concept of the Land of Is."

Poor Man's Polygraph - Part 3 - Forced Response:

"The Forced Response is designed to increase cognitive load. ... [This] technique presents a question that appears to have only two answers but, in actuality, alternate responses are available. ... The truthful person has the cognitive capacity to quickly process the new information and produce an alternate answer to the Forced Response question. When liars are presented with thought provoking questions, they tend to hesitate before they answer to give themselves time to formulate an appropriate answer."

Poor Man's Polygraph - Part 4 - Why Should I Believe You?

"When truthful people are asked the question, "Why should I believe you?" their natural response is "I'm telling the truth" or some derivation thereof, because to them there is no alternate response. The facts are the facts. The same question put to liars introduces a degree of doubt. When liars perceive their stories are not fully believed, they attempt to supply additional reasons why their story should be believed instead of letting the facts speak for themselves."

As I said earlier, Part 5 hasn't yet been published, but clicking on the series title link (here or in the first paragraph) should bring up a list of all the elements of this series, including Part 5 when it's eventually released. All of them are very interesting, and well worth reading. Thanks to Dr. Schafer for a very valuable series.

Another useful article on a similar subject, I hate to tell you: Phrases that announce "I’m lying", was published in the Boston Globe recently by Erin McKean. A brief extract:

How many times have you seen barely suppressed glee in someone who — ostensibly — couldn’t be more reluctant to be the bearer of bad news? A lack of respect from someone who starts off “With all due respect”? A stunning dearth of comprehension from someone who prefaces their cluelessness with “I hear what you’re saying”? And has “I’m not a racist, but...” ever introduced an unbiased statement?

These contrary-to-fact phrases have been dubbed ... “but-heads,” because they’re at the head of the sentence, and usually followed by but. They’ve also been dubbed “false fronts,” “wishwashers,” and, less cutely, “lying qualifiers.”

. . .

Once you start looking for these but-heads, you see them everywhere, and you see how much they reveal about the speaker. When someone says “It’s not about the money, but...”, it’s almost always about the money.

There's much more at the link. Also highly recommended reading.

Peter