Become a Human Lie Detector in Under 60 Minutes

Become a Human Lie Detector in Under 60 Minutes

www.bigskypublishing.com.au

Dr David Craig

Copyright © Dr David Craig 2011

First published 2011

Copyright remains the property of the author and apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission.

All inquiries should be made to the publishers.

Big Sky Publishing Pty Ltd

PO Box 303, Newport, NSW 2106, Australia

Phone:

(61 2) 9918 2168

Fax:

(61 2) 9918 2396

Email:

info@bigskypublishing.com.au

Web:

www.bigskypublishing.com.au

Cover design and typesetting: Think Productions

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Author: Craig, David.

Title: Lie catcher : become a human lie detector in under 60 minutes / David Craig.

ISBN: 978-0-9870574-6-4 (pbk.)

Subjects: Lie detectors and detection--Popular works.

Truthfulness and falsehood.

Dewey Number: 363.254

Caveat: The views and comments expressed in this book are solely the author’s. The author does not represent any government agency, any commercial company or private body. The techniques contained in this book are utilised by lie detection professionals around the world and when correctly applied, will improve the accuracy of lie detection in most people. However, no technique in lie detection is 100 per cent accurate, and caution should be exercised before reaching a conclusion that a person has lied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the never-ending support of my wife Alisa and my four children Katrina, Lucinda, Rosalie and Roy. Also, my mother Dell (a published author in her own right) assisted greatly with this project.

A special thanks to Brett and Shakimra Charles of LEFTFIELD Sound, Vision and Multimedia, for their friendship and professional support.

I would also like to acknowledge Denny Neave of Big Sky Publishing for his faith and commitment, and last but not least, Diane Evans who provided insight and worked tirelessly to keep all the moving parts oiled and on time!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Part One: Understanding Lies

The Nature of Lying

Other-Focused Lies

Self-Focused Lies

To protect from embarrassment

To make a positive impression

To gain an advantage

To avoid punishment

Summary of Main Points

The Nature of Lie Detection: how good are we – naturally?

Summary of Main Points

Part Two: Detecting Lies

The Lying Response

Phase One: Emotional Response

Phase Two: Sympathetic Nervous Response

Phase Three: Cognitive Response – a counter-measure

The Lying Response

Summary of Main Points

Lie Detection Process – it’s MAGIC!

Step 1: Motivation

Step 2: Ask Control Questions - Establish a behavioural baseline

Step 3: Guilt Questions – Ask the Guilt Questions

Step 4: Indicators: Are there Lying Indicators in clue clusters?

Step 5: Check Again: Re-examine

MAGIC in Action

Summary of Main Points

Lying Signs

It’s Written All Over The Face

The Eyes

The Nose Knows

The Mouth

Micro-expressions – Flashes of Falsehood

Confusion Between Micro-expressions

A Body of Lies

Speaking with Forked Tongue

Summary of Main Points

Go For It!

Part Three: Easy Reference Section

The Nature of Lying: Summary of Main Points

The Nature of Lie Detection: Summary of Main Points

The Lying Response: Summary of Main Points

Lie Detection Process – It’s MAGIC: Summary of Main Points

Lying Signs: Summary of Main Points

Lying Signs: Easy Reference List

Lying Signs: Image Reference Guide

Micro-expressions: Image Reference Guide

Handy Hints – Parents and Teachers

Handy Hints – Recruitment Interviewing and Negotiation

Referenced Material and Endnotes

10 per cent of the author’s profits from the sale of this book will be donated to the Royal Children’s Hospital and the National Police Memorial

INTRODUCTION

You were most likely attracted to this book because you are intrigued by the concept of knowing when someone is telling you the truth and when they are not, or you have unknowingly been lied to in the past and want to protect yourself against deception in the future. This book will assist you with both.

When I first began researching the subject of lie detection years ago, I realised that there were many high-level academic papers and textbooks on the subject, but no credible and easy-to-read guides offering knowledge and skills that could be put straight into practice – so I decided to write one.

If you are looking for a psychological edge when cutting a business deal, negotiating an outcome, interacting with people or even making a purchase, then this book is for you. Lie detection does not have to be a sinister practice. You will find there are some fun and interesting exercises within these pages. Challenge your friends and family – can they get away with lying to you?

In addition to having over 20 years of criminological experience and research focused on deception and deception detection in covert operations, I have spent many hundreds of hours researching the theoretical work of some of the world’s finest academics on this subject. The combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience has enabled me to consolidate all the relevant information into a very practical book, which will quickly set you on the path to becoming a Human Lie Detector. Studies have shown that with training and practise most people can rapidly increase their success at detecting lies. This book will do this for you.

If your time is limited and you just want to get started, I have designed this book so you can bypass Part One: Understanding Lies and go straight to the practical section, Part Two: Detecting Lies. If you decide to start with the practical section, I recommend that, as you are practising what you have read in Part Two – you make the time to read Part One, as it will provide you with a greater understanding of deception.

Knowing the difference between when people lie to you and when they are telling the truth is a vital human skill for the 21st century. Regardless of your age, gender or background, this book will equip you with tools you need to become an effective Human Lie Detector. Happy hunting!

Part One

Understanding lies

THE NATURE OF LYING

Mendacity, fib, porky, falsehood, whopper, yarn – I’ve even heard it politely referred to by an American presidential candidate as having ‘misspoke’. I’m not sure that’s even a word – perhaps it was a lie. Regardless of the title or the context within which it occurs, we all have an opinion on what a lie is and there are a multitude of different descriptions for the act of lying. In my opinion, a lie is a physical act or verbal statement or omission, deliberately designed to deceive another of the truth. For example, a person could lie physically, as a shoplifter does, when projecting the ‘physical’ impression to store security of an honest shopper, while secretly removing goods from the shelves. Verbally, a person may attempt to deceive another person by saying, or not saying, particular words. Both examples are designed to deceive another of the truth.

Most people would agree that lying is an act of dishonesty, and it is this negative connotation that leads most people, when asked, to say they very rarely lie. In almost all cases, this is incorrect. There have been many independent academic studies on the frequency of lying in society. Some have revealed that we lie as little as twice a day (only 730 times a year!), whereas more recent research shows on average people lie three times in every 10 minutes of conversation.[2] Robert Feldman’s research found some middle ground when he conducted a study at the University of Massachusetts, which found that 60 per cent of the people he researched lied at least once every 10 minutes during conversation.[3] To most people these are surprising statistics, verging on unbelievable. This is understandable considering that one of the most offensive things a person can be called by another is – a liar. The fact remains, however, that studies conducted across a variety of societal groups and cultures have revealed that, while the frequency of lying may differ from study to study, lying is a universal and everyday event.

When people first hear this they disagree – and I admit that initially it sounds quite shocking. It is only through understanding the very nature of lying that these statistics make sense and we can more readily accept that lying is a very normal part of human interaction. Once you understand the nature of lying, and can identify that someone has lied to you, you will be able to calculate the motivation behind why the person lied.

Broadly speaking there are two categories of lies: Self-Focused and Other-Focused. Self-Focused Lies are told to help the person telling the lie, whereas Other-Focused Lies are told to help another person. We’ll examine the Other-Focused Lies first as these are usually innocuous and are rarely hurtful or threatening. On the other hand, Self-Focused Lies do have the very real potential to have a detrimental effect upon the people they are told to. That being the case, after a short discussion on the nature of Other-Focused Lies, the remainder of the book will examine in detail Self-Focused Lies and how you can detect them.

Other-Focused Lies

Other-Focused Lies are as the name suggests, lies that are focused upon another person. They are usually told with a good intention by the deceiver and in most cases, if the truth is discovered it is not overly hurtful to the person who was lied to. These lies are sometimes referred to as white lies or good-will lies and the motivation for telling them is to benefit or protect another person in some way.

For example, you may meet a good friend you have not seen for many years and say, ‘You’ve barely changed since we last met.’ When in fact the person could be carrying a lot more weight, have more grey hair and have aged significantly more than you expected. Regardless, this person is a good friend and it’s good to see them, why should this be spoiled by coldly stating your real observations, ‘Gee you’ve put on weight, your hair’s definitely grey and thinning, and boy, you’re looking old. Still it’s good to see you.’? It might be the last time you see them – we don’t always expect or want the truth.

Similarly, a friend or colleague of yours had been very ill and you are shocked at how much weight they have lost and how pale their skin is when you meet them. Despite these observations, you may feel as though the person needs a lift and tell one of the Other-Focused Lies by giving them a compliment on how they look. Both of these examples are lies, Other-Focused Lies, but – told for good reasons. Other examples may include a father’s feigned delight at receiving yet another set of socks on Father’s Day or, the mother who thanks her four year old daughter for the tasty honey and sardine sandwich she made for her lunch.

Some example questions that may automatically evoke an Other-Focused Lie, for the benefit of the person asking the question:

• ‘Does my bum look big in this?’

• ‘Do you like my new shoes?’

• ‘Do you think I’ve put on weight?’

Other-Focused Lies are also automatically told in response to questions we are most frequently asked such as, ‘How are you?’; ‘How have you been?’; ‘How’s the family?’ On nearly all occasions when this question is asked, the response is an automated and positive Other-Focused Lie: ‘Fine’; ‘Not bad’; ‘Good’. When this question is posed, unless it is a genuine welfare check, the person who is asking the question does not expect or want a fully detailed and accurate response. Consider a situation where two work colleagues pass each other in the office foyer. One says to the other, ‘Hi, how have you been – how’s the family?’ Imagine a totally honest response, ‘I’m all right, though I have a bit of a headache and these shoes are killing me. I keep worrying about the argument I had with my partner this morning, we seem to be drifting apart these days. Peter is doing well at school but he never seems to clean his room and it really annoys me.’

Clearly, this question was asked as a polite symbolic statement to the other, to demonstrate that they are interested in them as a person; though not interested enough to hear all the details, nor would the responder wish to share these details for reasons of privacy or not wanting to burden the other person with these problems. These types of questions are commonplace in most cultures and are usually responded to in the same positive and automated way.

Other-Focused Lies need not always be superficial or simply aligned with social etiquette nor are they always practised among friends or colleagues. Other-Focused Lies can also involve a significant degree of deception between total strangers, sometimes necessarily so. For example, consider a situation where a person witnesses a distressed wife fleeing her house and seeking refuge from her enraged husband in a neighbour’s house. If questioned by the husband, it would be reasonable to expect the witness to tell an Other-Focused Lie to protect the wife, e.g. ‘I think she ran that way’ indicating a false direction to the husband or denying seeing anything. The witness may not know any of the parties involved with the situation, however the principle of the Other-Focused Lie remains; a lie told for the benefit of, or to protect, another person – in this case the wife.

Society allows and in fact expects these types of lies to be told as a part of our normal human interaction. This category of lie is the lubricant that keeps the wheels of social interaction turning smoothly, avoiding any unnecessary friction. Despite the usual ‘good will’ motivating a person to tell an Other-Focused Lie, it remains most definitely a lie, as they are deliberately designed to deceive another of the truth. However, it’s very hard to criticise someone who tells this type of lie, in fact there is an expectation that most within society will do so.

Take a moment now to reflect upon the statistics in respect to the high frequency of lying that was stated earlier – is lying once in every 10 minutes of conversation still so surprising? If you really want to test these statistics yourself, I suggest you keep a ‘Lie Diary’ for one week, writing in it every time you lie, no matter how small the lie may be. If you are totally honest about your lies, you’ll be surprised at how often you lie and also, how necessary lying is. If you’re still unconvinced, try not lying for an entire week – this is extremely difficult and you will likely offend people by always telling the truth.

Hopefully this section has provided you with some understanding as to why there is such a high frequency of lying and also that it is not always a dishonourable act for a person to lie, particularly with Other-Focused Lies. The next category of lies, however, can carry a much more sinister agenda.

Self-Focused Lies

In contrast to Other-Focused Lies, Self-Focused Lies are told to provide a benefit or to protect the person telling the lie and studies have shown that 50 per cent of lies told fall into this category.[4] There are four separate motivations for a person telling a Self-Focused lie to you. These are:

• To protect from embarrassment.

• To make a positive impression.

• To gain an advantage.

• To avoid punishment.[5]

So you can more easily recognise each of these when you encounter them, I’ll provide some examples.

To protect from embarrassment

This is the least harmful motivation for someone telling a Self-Focused Lie. Examples may include:

• A person fabricating a reason why they can’t meet someone for a drink, when in fact the real reason is they simply can’t afford to.

• A person having spent a lonely weekend may tell others that it was a great weekend, simply to avoid any potential embarrassment at not having a partner.

• A person may commence catching public transport to work while the damaged car is in for repairs; offering the excuse that this is due to the difficulty in finding a car park in the city, rather than admitting to crashing their car.

As you can see from these examples, the nature of this motivation for telling a Self-Focused Lie is understandable, though sometimes misunderstood; they are rarely hurtful or damaging.

To make a positive impression

Wanting to make a positive impression is a very common factor in Self-Focused Lies and one that you will encounter most frequently. The motivating factor is often insecurity on the part of the deceiver, causing them to feel they need to impress beyond what is actually the truthful situation. There are varying degrees of fabrication under this category, from slight exaggeration to complete fabrication. On most occasions people will ‘colour’ the truth with a small degree of false information with a view to improving the way others perceive them. Less frequent, but with the potential to be more harmful, is the total fabrication of some aspect that the deceiver invents with the express purpose of impressing you.

This motivation can be present in situations such as when a couple first commences dating or where there is some perceived competition between two individuals or an individual and others, as may occur between adult siblings at a family gathering or past students at a school reunion. Some examples include:

• Exaggerating how much a person earns.

• Pretending to know celebrities or well-connected social identities (name dropping).

• Making up personal, or in some cases children’s academic qualifications, sporting achievements or skills.

• Inflating the number of staff a person is responsible for supervising, or exaggerating the scope of a professional role or importance within a professional or sporting group.

The effect of this type of lie upon another can vary from irrelevant false information that has no adverse effect, to the potential to undermine or destroy a relationship and cause a significant degree of personal hurt; as could be the case if a couple’s relationship was formed on significantly false information. Within a business context, there is also the potential for monetary loss or professional embarrassment. For example, a CEO or business partner could be falsely led into agreeing to hire or to go into partnership with an under-qualified deceiver, or negotiating a business outcome based upon on misleading statements made by a deceiver – both could be costly mistakes for the business. These examples bear testimony as to why it is important to be able to detect liars in both business and personal interactions. The more sinister calibre of ‘positive impression lies’ could also be considered to fall within the following category: To gain an advantage.

To gain an advantage

As we’ve already discussed, when taken to the extreme the motivation of wanting to create a positive impression can be harnessed with the ulterior motive of also wanting to gain an advantage. Lying to gain an advantage is clearly a sinister act and certainly worthy of your detection. Some examples include:

• Inventing circumstances where the deceiver requires your help, such as personal or financial assistance.

• Spreading false information about another person with whom they are in competition.

• Fabricating aspects of a job application or previous work history (very common).

• If selling, fabricating the history or worth of the object for sale.

• If buying, claiming to have less money or stating that a similar object is for sale at a cheaper price elsewhere in order to have the sale price reduced.

Within a social group one person may initiate false rumours about another for the sole purpose of denigrating their credibility. You may be the person targeted by such lies, in which case you have two courses of action. First, highlight the inconsistencies in the facts of the rumour with others in the group, which if done successfully will have the opposite effect to what the deceiver intended. Second, you could confront the people you suspect are responsible for initiating the rumour, and by utilising your newly found lie-detection skills quickly identify the culprit. In a similar circumstance, these skills may assist you in quelling a rumour if a deceiver attempts to provide you with false information about another person, as you will be able to quickly determine the truth of the situation.

Within a business context it is common for individuals or companies to try and gain an advantage. Sometimes this is through exaggerated information or outright lies by the individuals concerned. If you are doing business in a competitive industry where the ethos is ‘any advantage at any cost’ it is highly likely that you or your company will be targeted by such falsehoods. As clever liars incorporate false information within genuine facts, having the ability to tell the difference between the two – particularly in respect to business negotiation where some information may be exaggerated and some discounted to create an advantage over you or your company – can protect your commercial interests. Later in the book we examine in detail exactly how to identify false information, which with practise you will be able to do far more reliably than you can most likely do now.

To avoid punishment

Lying to avoid punishment is a very strong motivating factor in Self-Focused Lies and one that is quickly initiated by a person for self-protection or to avoid personal responsibility. As with all reasons for lying, there is a wide-ranging spectrum from minor to significant. The extent to which a person will lie to avoid punishment is usually directly proportional to the consequences of being caught – the greater the consequences, the more elaborate and extreme the lies will be in order to avoid the punishment. For example, a fabricated reason as to why a person is late for a meeting (e.g. traffic jam) with a friend or colleague may be offered quickly and without a lot of forethought as the consequence of being found out is minor – just a degree of personal embarrassment. However, for the murderer being interviewed by the police, the fabricated alibi or cover story is often elaborate, detailed and well planned, as the consequences of being caught are significant.

The examples listed below demonstrate varying degrees of the motivation to avoid punishment:

• One child blaming another for writing on a wall or losing an item of clothing.

• A fabricated excuse offered to a parking inspector.

• Damage to a motor vehicle, explained to a car owner, spouse or an insurance provider by a complete denial of knowledge, as is offered regularly: ‘Another car must have run into it when I was parked at the shopping centre’.

• Falsification of business records to avoid taxation responsibilities.

• A spouse or partner inventing an alibi as to their whereabouts while really being with another.

The ramifications of a person successfully lying to you to avoid punishment may only be minor or could be quite damaging, as would be the case if the deceiver convinced you another person was to blame, and you in-turn accused the innocent person.

Understanding the motivation behind lying is the first step in detecting a lie. When a person is giving you information you should quickly be able to assess whether there is in fact any motivation for that person to lie to you. If there is, then you need to turn on your lie radar, or as I like to call it, ‘Liedar’ and start scanning for verbal signs (what the person says and how they say it) and non-verbal signs (what the person does/how they act). Alternatively, if you detect a person has lied to you, understanding the categories and motivation behind the lie will provide you with an insight into that person’s mind and give you a psychological advantage when next interacting with that person. You will, from that point forward, have a far more effective ability to detect lies told by that person.

We have discussed the motivations behind Other-Focused Lies (usually told with a good intention by the deceiver) and the Self-Focused Lies (told to benefit or to protect the person telling the lie). There is not always a clear delineation between these two categories. Understanding the motivation behind them will assist you to quickly differentiate between the two. For example, how do you answer when your boss asks, ‘Do you enjoy working here?’ If your response is that you do enjoy working there when in fact you don’t, this is most likely an Other-Focused Lie, designed to satisfy your boss. However, if your motivation for saying this was not to please your boss, but to gain favour with the boss then this would be a Self-Focused Lie. Of course, you could also be telling the truth!

Summary of main points

Lying is a normal part of human communication and should not always be considered a bad thing to do.

People lie regularly, about once every 10 minutes during conversation.

Sometimes lying is necessary to protect a person’s feelings and to assist with everyday human interaction. On other occasions lying can be very detrimental to people and their relationships.

Other-Focused Lies are directed at another person and are usually told with the good intention of the deceiver. They are sometimes called white lies or good-will lies.

Self-Focused Lies may be directed at any person, but are told for the purpose of benefitting or protecting the person telling the lie. While not always the case, this category of lie can be sinister and damaging.

THE NATURE OF LIE DETECTION: HOW GOOD ARE WE – NATURALLY?

Children learn from a very young age (around five years) that they can possess knowledge that another person does not have and can therefore manipulate the other person’s mind or knowledge of facts; in other words, they learn to lie. Despite discovering this ability at a very early age, children are novice liars and are quite easily detected by adults. However, as we continue through life telling Self-Focused and Other-Focused Lies for a variety of reasons, we become more accomplished in the art of deceiving others. Accepting that generally humans do lie regularly (often with good intentions) and therefore should be well practised at it, how good are we at detecting the lies that others tell us?

Most people over-estimate their ability to detect lies. You’re reading this book, which is aimed at teaching people how to detect, lies, so perhaps you don’t fit into this category. However, it is clear that most people are over-confident when it comes to knowing when someone is lying. Most people believe that they can tell if their partner or close friend lies to them. Surprisingly, this is not generally the case. There are two primary reasons for this: confidence and closeness. Let me explain.

Due to the close relationship with the partner or close friend, a person ‘naturally’ becomes over-confident in being able to identify lies told by that person. This assumption is based upon the belief the person knows the partner more intimately than most, and will therefore be able to identify any telltale signs of deceit. This assumption is greatly weakened by the fact that humans inherently want to believe what they are told by those they love. Understandably, it is very difficult through a close and intimate rapport to remain objective and calculating in respect to assessing whether that person is lying to you. On one hand you want to believe the person is telling you the truth and on the other, you are over-confident that you’ll see it if it occurs, due to the closeness of the relationship. The combination of these two factors can lead a person in a relationship to overlook otherwise obvious signs. Signs often detected by people outside the relationship.

As will be discussed in more detail later in the book, to be an expert lie detector you need to practise these skills regularly. It’s unnatural for parents to continuously be suspicious of their children throughout the entirety of their childhood. Similarly, it is not conducive to a close relationship for one partner to continuously assess and be suspicious of the other. It is for these two reasons that we don’t often focus our ‘Liedar’ on those we love and we are therefore at a disadvantage when we do because we are not well practised on our partner’s/friend’s telltale signs of deceit. Often others outside a relationship are better at detecting the lies of those involved within the relationship. Why? Because they don’t have the close and confident factors to overcome, they remain objective and are therefore more accurate at assessing the verbal and non-verbal clues of lying.

Has there been an occasion in your life where you have seen one partner lying to the other, and yet that partner seems to miss all the clues that are obvious you? Similarly, has there been an occasion when you’ve heard a person in a relationship that has suffered because of a significant lie say, ‘I just didn’t see it coming.’? Perhaps after a relationship or friendship has ended, you have reflected on certain things and realised that perhaps the person wasn’t as honest as you thought when you were in the relationship. The reason that you have better clarity to assess the truthfulness or otherwise of the person after a relationship has ended is because some of the confidence and closeness has been eroded or completely removed. It is often the case that after a relationship has ended, due to one partner’s infidelity, that the innocent party is provided the objectivity to see there were many telltale signs of the infidelity during the relationship. The closeness and confidence hid them – in plain view.

Many parents believe they can always tell when their children lie. This is true when their children are younger. However, as children become older they become better practised at lying and by the time they reach the age of 15+, it can become extremely difficult to detect. Parents need to keep in mind that while they have had a lifetime of observing their children’s behaviour – including detecting lies, which is easy while they’re younger (causing the parent to be over-confident) – the child has also had a lifetime of observing the parents’ behaviour and has learned by experience every time they have successfully lied. As such, children modify and develop their behaviour. By the time they are adolescents they have a veritable database stored away on ways they have manipulated, harassed or successfully lied to you to get what they want or to avoid punishment. I am by no means cynical of children or being critical in anyway. We have all gone through this process ourselves when we were growing up and most would agree that they have manipulated or lied to their parents and got away with it at some stage during their childhood; more successfully so as a teenager.

All is not lost though, as parents will still be able to detect most lies told by their children regardless of age, where there is a high level of emotion attached to it. For example, the child may have done something significantly wrong and may feel an extreme amount of personal guilt or fear of the consequences (Emotional Response). When this occurs, the high degree of emotion causes a Sympathetic Nervous Response and can trigger obvious telltale signs of lying, such as averting eye contact and fidgeting. (Emotional Response and Sympathetic Nervous Response are examined in the Lying Response on page 32). Regardless, of how practised children become at deceiving their parents, it is very difficult for them to disguise a lie where there is a huge detrimental consequence or punishment for doing so. On the other hand, when children tell a small lie, they know their parents will not be extremely disappointed or overly angry if the lie is discovered. They know that this small betrayal, if discovered, won’t end with a significant punishment. For these two reasons there is not a large degree of emotion attached to the lie and there will only be extremely subtle deceit clues that will reveal the child has in fact lied.

Despite the fact that parents continually try to teach children to always tell the truth, there is a school of psychological thought that it is natural for children to lie to their parents as part of gaining autonomy and independence as they grow up. This may be true; however, parents can take solace that they will, in most cases, always be able to tell when their children tell them a ‘whopper’. Later, this book reveals some of the subtle secrets in astute lie detection and may assist parents when interacting with their children. If you are a parent, I advise you to hide this book from your children!

So, if most people over-estimate how good they are at detecting lies, how good are we ‘naturally’ at detecting lies – without training, special skills and knowledge? Studies have shown that, despite our general over-confidence we are in fact not very good at detecting lies.[6] In fact, most people have only a 50 per cent chance of identifying when someone has lied. This isn’t because we lie perfectly; it has been found that 90 per cent of lies are accompanied by detectable clues; verbal and nonverbal signs that can be detected.[7] Interestingly, research has found that there is no universal difference in the capacity to detect lying between genders, age and social status.[8] Regardless of whether we are male or female, young or old, ‘naturally’ we are simply not very good lie detectors.

It appears strange that we seem to have an ongoing need and natural ability to regularly tell lies as part of our normal human interaction – sometimes understandably so and other times maliciously, or for self protection – and yet we are poor at detecting lies. This is even more peculiar when you consider that one of the highest values we place on personal relationships is that of honesty. It would be reasonable to assume that as we value honesty so highly we should be attuned to detect it (or the lack of it) and our capability to lie would be matched by an ability to detect lies as part of the evolutionary process. However, this is not the case.

Why then, are we better at lying than detecting lies? Professor Paul Ekman, the person on whom the fictional television series character Dr Cal Lightman of Lie to Me is based, puts forward some interesting evolutionary explanations for this.[9] In summary, Professor Ekman states that our ancestral environment, which consisted of small groups of people living in close proximity to each other with very little privacy, didn’t prepare us to have to psychologically assess and detect whether someone was being truthful. For example, in the case of adultery being committed within a group, due to the lack of privacy it would likely be physically ‘discovered’ or by chance witnessed by other members, rather than having been ascertained through psychological assessment. Professor Ekman also believes the ramifications of being caught telling a lie in those primitive times would have been severe, possibly ending in death. In such an environment, lies would not have been told very often because of the significant ramifications of being caught and the chances of being caught were high due to the lack of privacy. It appears as though our evolutionary background has taught us that we don’t need to try hard to catch a person lying because it will be ‘physically discovered’ and that lying doesn’t happen very often due to the serious consequences of doing so. Perhaps also it has taught us that when we do lie, we need to be very good at it. In the 21st century we live in a society where privacy is, quite rightly, vehemently protected and closely guarded. As such, the opportunity to ‘discover’ or by chance witness another’s deceitful act is significantly reduced. For example, consider the exponentially increasing number of cyber crimes where the victim of the crime, be it a person, bank or institution, has no personal interaction or even sees the perpetrator. Not that long ago, a cheque fraud thief had to show his/her face in the bank or business when cashing a fraudulent cheque, providing at least an opportunity for bank staff to detect the deceitful behaviour firsthand. Even bank robbers had the decency to at least visit the bank they were robbing! Today, credit card numbers can be stolen and personal bank funds may be transferred into a thief’s bank account instantaneously – often via the encrypted laptop of some young cyber thief utilising the free Wi-Fi network services of various businesses around the city, making them all but untraceable. In an effort to recover some of the funds, if a victim of such a crime then made enquiries into the transactions – where they occurred, who had access to the particular business Wi-Fi network etc. – the victim would very quickly find that all this information is protected by privacy policies and laws. Of course, these crimes can be investigated by law enforcement agencies that have the power to demand such information. I’m not an advocate against the protection of privacy (far from it), but these examples demonstrate the significance our society places on personal privacy, much more so than thousands of years ago. It appears things have changed greatly since our ancestors first walked the earth, and didn’t have to develop their detection skills due to a lack of privacy.

The ramifications of lying need not be as severe or long lasting as they were thousands of years ago. Today liars who have been caught can easily change jobs, change partners, change phone numbers, change their ‘village’ and even change their name to avoid the ongoing consequences of deceitful behaviour. Even serious criminals (who often utilise deceit as a business tool), are well supported by 21st century justice and rehabilitation policy through court orders that often suppress publication of their names and allow them to change their names upon release and make a fresh start, free from any consequences of their previous deceit. These examples are not provided to be critical of rehabilitation policies, but to highlight that our society is now more conducive to telling lies; there are more opportunities and less ramifications. Now more than ever we need to have astute lie detection skills. Clearly, 21st century humans need to evolve and evolve quickly.

Coming from an evolutionary background where lying didn’t occur very often and when it did we had to be good at it, and where the detection of lying wasn’t often required because of the lack of privacy, it is understandable why today we find the ‘mental arms race’ between lying and being able to detect lies, is being ‘naturally’ won by the former. Thanks, Doctor Darwin.

Gaining additional knowledge and practical skills to strengthen your lie detection arsenal can redress this evolutionary imbalance. You are doing it right now by reading this book. By gaining additional theoretical knowledge and applying this practically, people are able to attain rates as high as 80 per cent accuracy in lie detection. Hopefully, by the end of this book you will be well on your way becoming a Human Lie Detector.

In summary, due to the evolutionary process there is a vast imbalance between our ability to tell lies and our poor ability to detect them. However, most people will be able to dramatically improve and develop their ability to detect lies by gaining additional knowledge and practise. This will give you a mental advantage when interacting with others who are ‘naturally’ less skilled. In the 21st century, it is advantageous in personal, business and general human interaction to have the psychological skills to assess the truthfulness of other people. You are well on your way.

While this book is focused upon increasing personal lie detection skills, I don’t suggest you keep your ‘Liedar’ turned on at all times. It is my view that people are generally good and that while we lie frequently as we make our way through life, most lies are harmless. I believe it is neither healthy nor desirable for a person to take a constant doubting and suspicious stance toward everyone. To do so would have two adverse effects – first, it would foster a more cynical outlook on life and make it difficult to find intimacy and enjoy trusting relationships; and second, accuracy in lie detection would also falter. Studies have shown one of the primary factors inhibiting investigators from making accurate assessments of deceit is that they commonly approach suspects with the view that the suspect is guilty, and they just need to find proof; this clouds their objective assessment, and they miss vital non-verbal clues. Whereas, a more accurate lie detector will approach each person from a purely objective viewpoint and assess both verbal and non-verbal behaviours for clues of deception in a measured and unclouded way.

Additionally I believe a person who is not looking for lies all the time will be far more focused and effective when they do turn on their ‘Liedar’. While I don’t believe people need to have their ‘Liedar’ on at all times, it can be an extremely vital tool (when required) to protect yourself or others you care about in business and personal relationships. Judgement just needs to be shown as to when you want to hit the ‘on’ switch.

We have established that ‘naturally’, we are not very good at detecting lies; certainly not as good as we think we are. Perhaps this is understandable for the layperson, but what about the people in our society – such as police, judges, lawyers and psychiatrists – who have a vested interest in having a high lie detection rate? Surprisingly, two reliable and independent studies of these specific categories revealed that these professionals were not much better than having a 50 per cent chance at detection.[10] In fact a comprehensive study conducted by Kraut and Poe, found that US Customs Officers were no more accurate in detecting deceit than college students.[11] This is quite alarming when one considers Customs are the people charged with protecting our borders and making an assessment of every person that enters the country. It wouldn’t be confidence-inspiring to see Customs Officers replaced by college students to assess everyone entering the country, but based on this study it may be just as effective![12]

The study by Professors Paul Ekman and Maureen O’Sullivan found that after testing secret service agents, federal polygraphers, investigators, judges, psychiatrists and college students, there was one group that outperformed all the others.[13] The majority of those tested achieved between 40-60 per cent accuracy. As was discussed earlier, this is approximately the accuracy expected of a person ‘naturally’. However, more than half of the US Secret Service officers tested achieved above 70 per cent accuracy.

One of the explanations as to why this group outperformed all others was that they were involved in close personal protection (bodyguard) duties, protecting important government officials. In this role, they are constantly scanning crowds in an effort to identify suspicious behaviour that may lead to a threat against the person they’re protecting. By constantly observing the behaviour of others and focusing their mind upon detecting threat clues, it appears as though they have developed an ability to detect non-verbal deceit. In short, they have developed an ability to identify guilt or at least deceptive behaviour through observation skills. I have had the opportunity to undertake similar roles and can attest from my first-hand experience in these roles that after a period of constantly assessing people, there is a noticeable increase in the capacity to rapidly make an assessment of a person’s intention through the observation of non-verbal behaviour.

The ability to assess non-verbal behaviour can greatly increase the accuracy of lie detection. Studies have shown that accurate lie detectors rely upon different information than people who are less accurate in detecting lies. The primary difference is that accurate lie detectors observe a combination of verbal and nonverbal behaviour to make their assessment. Inaccurate lie detectors place a greater emphasis on verbal information alone; they rely on what they are told, to establish whether someone is lying. An accurate lie detector relies on a combination of what they’re told and what they observe.[14]

There have been a multitude of books written on body language, some by well-credentialed academics and professionals, and some by others less qualified. Regardless, one common thread that ties most of these publications together is that they all believe that non-verbal behaviour (what is done) has more influence on communication than verbal (what is said). There have been a variety of different studies conducted to estimate the proportion of verbal versus nonverbal percentages during human communication. Some have placed non-verbal communication as high as 80 per cent, though I find this questionable. A more realistic result, which has subsequently been supported by other studies, was found when Albert Mehrabian was conducting extensive research into body language. Mehrabian, found that 55 per cent of communication was non-verbal (how the body moves); 38 per cent was vocal (how things are said) and only seven per cent was purely verbal (what was said).[15] Based on this and other research it appears clear that we rely more on non-verbal behaviour (55 per cent) than verbal behaviour (45 per cent) in respect to communication. Does the same hold true in respect to lie detection?

As mentioned before, the US Secret Service personnel rated above all others tested in respect to lie detection accuracy and one of the reasons for this was their well-practised and accurate interpretation of non-verbal behaviour. Reinforcing this concept was a study that compared people suffering from Aphasia against normal healthy individuals. Aphasia is a condition caused by damage to the left hemisphere of the brain that results in the total or partial loss of ability to understand spoken or written language. This study pitted the Aphasic group, who have no understanding of what words in a sentence mean, and therefore must rely totally on voice tone and non-verbal behaviour, against a group who had normally functioning brains.

The normal group in their assessment would logically listen to what was said and how it was said and also observe non-verbal behaviour. The Aphasics could only do the latter two, as they simply could not understand what was said. Surprisingly, the research found that the Aphasics outperformed the other group significantly in detecting lies.[16] The Aphasics clearly relied upon what they saw in the person’s behaviour and how they said their words to identify who was lying. This removes any doubt that, while logically what is said is important, it is not as important as how it is said, nor is it as important as observing the person’s non-verbal behaviour as they speak.

Perhaps this also gives us a clue as to why judges performed averagely in the previously mentioned test. In court, evidence is based upon exhibits such as photographs, written statements, forensic re-creations and the oral testimony of people who are sworn to tell the truth. In addition to this, from an evidentiary perspective, a court is primarily interested in what is said not how it is said. How something is said is not evidence, nor is someone’s non-verbal behaviour as they give evidence, although it may go against their credibility if they look guilty in the eyes of the jury (and judge) as they give their testimony. Therefore, it is perhaps understandable why judges pay particular attention to exhibits produced before them and also to exactly what is said before them rather than how something is said or the non-verbal behaviour of the person as they speak. Despite what personal views a judge may form about a witness or a defendant, professionally, judges are predominantly concerned with facts and this forms the focus of their assessment. This being the case, they are not well practised at assessing whether someone is telling the truth based upon non-verbal behaviour. This provides a reasonable explanation as to why judges did not perform as well in the test as most would expect; about the same as a layperson.

So we have established that without specific lie detection training, everyday citizens and professionals are not very good at detecting lies. However, there is one very small group within our community that are the exception to the rule – Lie Wizards.

Lie Wizards constitute a very small group in society that have the ability to detect lies with a high degree of accuracy. As previously discussed, the average person has the ability to detect lies with around 50 per cent accuracy. With training and practise this accuracy level can be raised to about 80 per cent accuracy. Lie Wizards, however, have a natural accuracy rate of 80 per cent or better, with no training whatsoever. They are extremely rare though as approximately only two in every 1000 people have this ability.[17] Dr O’Sullivan conducted an extensive study into lie detection wizards and found the group was made up equally of both men and women from varying educational backgrounds. This is encouraging, as it doesn’t matter whether you are male or female, highly educated or less educated, you can still become an accurate Human Lie Detector.[18]

There are a number of theories about why these people have such a naturally high degree of accuracy. These range from the Lie Wizard growing up in a dysfunctional or violent household where the identification of threats through non-verbal communication became highly developed as a child, to a skill developed from childhood by the constant study of people’s faces and reactions either by a natural inherent motivation or through some form of interest such as drawing or sketching portraits. Regardless of how this ability was attained, a common factor with most studies is that the detection by these Lie Wizards is based primarily via non-verbal clues, most commonly facial. It appears as though this select group have a highly developed ability to detect micro-expressions and other very subtle signs that are lost on us mere mortals. Micro-expressions are expressions demonstrating an emotion that appears extremely briefly (1/25 of a second) on a person’s face. These are discussed in more detail in the following chapter on page 84.

There is no conclusive evidence identifying that Lie Wizards were born with this ability, rather they learned and developed their skills over a long period of time. Dr O’Sullivan found that Lie Wizards are motivated. They want to get it right and they practise their skills constantly, like athletes.[19] This should provide you with some encouragement as it further validates that knowledge and practise does in fact increase the ability to detect lies.

If you are already a Lie Wizard then this book won’t be of great benefit to you. However, if you want to become a Lie Wizard, then intensive study and practice over a period of time will set you on the correct path. Lie Wizards are extremely rare. I’m pretty confident though that all my schoolteachers were in fact Lie Wizards. They just seemed to know every time I did something wrong. They blamed me for everything I did, which seemed grossly unfair at the time! If you are unlucky enough to have a child that’s a Lie Wizard, then you can probably drop the whole Santa and Easter Bunny ruse; though you may want to invite them to assist you at your next poker game!

Other-Focused Lies: Told with good intention – ‘Does my bum look big in this?’

Self-Focused Lies: Told to protect from embarrassment – ‘I’m having a great birthday party. Everyone’s here.’

Self-Focused Lies: Told to make a good impression – ‘My other car’s a Lamborghini.’

Self-Focused Lies: To gain advantage – ‘Yes I’ve had a lot of experience in this industry.’

Summary of main points

Naturally, we are far better at telling lies than detecting them. Without specific training most people, including those from professions where detecting lies is crucial, achieve a lie detection rate of about 50 per cent.

With specific knowledge (provided by this book) and practice (provided by you), people may achieve a lie detection rate of 80 per cent.

The more you use your ‘Liedar’ the more accurate your lie detection skills will become. However, you don’t want it on constantly – knowing when to turn it ‘on’ will make you more focused when you do use these skills.

There is a special category of Human Lie Detector (referred to as Lie Wizards) that has a natural talent in accurate lie detection without specific training, achieving starting percentages of 80 per cent or better.

Most people believe that they can tell if their partner, child or close friend lies to them. This is usually not the case, due to two primary factors; over-confidence (they know the person well and will therefore be able to see the telltale signs) and closeness (the natural default position for humans is to believe the people they are emotionally close to). These two factors lead to a loss of objectivity preventing a person in a close relationship from seeing otherwise obvious signs.

Studies have demonstrated that 55 per cent of communication is non-verbal (how the body moves/reacts); 38 per cent is vocal (how things are said) and only 7 per cent is purely verbal (what was said). While what is said cannot be totally discounted in lie detection, how things are said and how a person’s body moves/ reacts while communicating is far more important.

Relying solely on what is said is inherently unreliable. Accurate lie detectors rely on a combination of what they’re told and what they observe.

Part Two

Detecting lies

If you have completed reading Part One you will now have a good understanding of the nature and motivation for lying and Part Two will provide you with some additional theoretical knowledge before moving on to the practical aspects of lie detection – the fun stuff!

If you have bypassed Part One and just started reading, then Part Two will provide you with some very basic but essential theory before moving on to the purely practical aspects of lie detection. In Part One, we discussed the need to be able to quickly assess whether there is any motivation for a person to lie to you when they are giving you information. If there is, then you need to turn on your lie radar, or as I term it, ‘Liedar’ and start scanning for verbal signs (what the person says and how they say it) and non-verbal signs (what the person does/how they act).

If you suffer from a general impatience (as I do), try to resist going directly to the Lying Signs section in Part Two as the theory leading up to that section will greatly enhance your ability to improve your accuracy as a Human Lie Detector.

THE LYING RESPONSE

After a person tells a lie there are a series of responses. Some of these responses are nervous and automated, while some are consciously initiated by the person telling the lie to cover the deceit. Having an understanding of these responses will assist you greatly in identifying the deceit clues a person consciously or subconsciously exhibits when lying.

Broadly speaking there are three responsive phases after a lie is told:

• Phase One: Emotional Response.

• Phase Two: Sympathetic Nervous Response.

• Phase Three: Cognitive Response.

Phase One: Emotional Response

When individuals tell a lie, they enter the phase of Emotional Response; recognition of what they have just done. If the lie is a minor one, or the person telling the lie has told that lie on a number of occasions and got away with it, or they are accomplished liars, there will only be a minor degree of Emotional Response. As a result, the following two responses (phases two and three) are very minor indeed. Under these circumstances it is difficult, though not impossible, to detect the lie. However, where individuals tell a significant lie, or one that they have not practised, or one that has major ramifications for the liar if detected, there is a significant degree of Emotional Response. Feelings of guilt, fear, stress and on occasion excitement will manifest as a result of the person recognising what they have just done, and the consequences of that act. In these circumstances, the liar moves very quickly into phase two.

Phase Two: Sympathetic Nervous Response

The Sympathetic Nervous Response is as the name suggests, the reaction of the nervous system to the Emotional Response phase. If the liar is emotionally charged with guilt, fear, stress or excitement as a result of the lie that has just been told, the nervous system reacts in line with our natural ‘fight or flight’ instincts. Instinctively, the liar’s body responds by releasing adrenaline which may manifest itself in ways that can be observed by the Human Lie Detector, sometimes referred to as ‘deceit clues’. Obvious examples of these include finger tapping, fidgeting, talking too quickly and rapid eye movement. When the liar enters this phase your ‘Liedar’ screen should be well and truly focused on that person.

Phase Three: Cognitive Response – a counter-measure

The Cognitive Response is the liar’s recognition of the manifestation of the Sympathetic Nervous Response. It is a mental and physical counter-measure; aimed at disguising the signs the liar thinks will give them away. For example, in response to recognising they are nervously fidgeting or have shaky hands, liars will attempt to exert some control over these deceit clues by disguising them. They may attempt to do this by holding a pen or hiding their hands out of sight, such as in their pockets or under a desk. These are rudimentary counter-measures and ones that should have your ‘Liedar’ alarm beeping away.

Liars are usually aware of the most obvious signs and will attempt to control them. Unfortunately for liars, the ability to control these deceit clues is limited by their cognitive ability to self-monitor the changes in their own behaviour. Some signs of lying are more easily controlled and monitored by the liar than others. For example, the previous case of fidgeting is one that is easily monitored and controlled by the liar in an attempt to hide that particular ‘deception clue’. There are other signs of lying that can be very difficult for a liar to monitor and control, such as the size of their pupils, increased rate of breathing or speaking with a shaky voice.

The reason for this can be explained as the body having a number of nervous behavioural channels that conduct information to and from the brain. A channel that has a high sending and receiving capacity makes it easier for the liar to monitor and control that particular behaviour. This is a highly conductive channel, one where the information to and from the brain flows freely and quickly, providing the liar with adequate feedback and allowing a significant degree of control over that deception clue. For example, the movement of fingers is a very repetitious behaviour during day-to-day living and as such, is a well-practised (and therefore highly conductive) channel and one that provides liars with a high degree of control; hence liars hiding their hands, or holding on to a desk or pen to hide that giveaway clue. In short, liars recognise that their behaviour has changed and they have started to move their fingers more rapidly than they would normally and their Cognitive Response is to slow that movement down, or to hide the movement completely, sometimes by grasping on to the arms of a chair or table.

The nervous behavioural channels have varying degrees of ‘conductivity’. At the other end of the spectrum from the previous example are channels with little or no conductivity at all, which provide liars with little feedback and no control over disguising the changes in behaviour when they have lied. For example, one of the signs a person is lying is an increase in the size of their pupils (pupil dilation). People don’t often (if ever) attempt to control the size of their pupils as this is a very unpractised channel, lacking conductivity and one that does not provide very much control. As such, while not always practical (unless captured in film clip/video) this is one of the good signs to look for if someone is lying, as it is nearly impossible for the liar to hide this from you.

In short, nervous behavioural channels that provide the free flow of information quickly, allow liars to control the ‘deception clue’ more easily, whereas channels with less conductivity prevent them from accurately monitoring changes in their behaviour, after they have told a lie.

As a Human Lie Detector, you shouldn’t discount deceit clues from highly conductive channels such as fingers, hands and the speed and quality of speech, but your primary focus will be on areas with less conductivity such as the lower parts of the body, eye movement and micro-expressions. (These are explained in more detail on page 84).

The reason we keep monitoring, rather than discounting the deceit clues from a highly conductive channel (such as finger movement), is that regardless of how efficient and conductive these channels are, under the right circumstances these too can become difficult for the liar to monitor. The reason for this is that the liar attempts to monitor all channels and control all possible deceit clues, while also attempting to maintain a convincing and logical verbal conversation. To do this causes a vast increase in the cognitive load on the brain (brain drain). This can lead to a breakdown of control by the liar, which may see an otherwise easily controllable deception clue ‘leak’ and become obvious. This is because humans only have a certain amount of brainpower and can only undertake a limited number of tasks simultaneously.

We can think of it in monetary terms. Consider that humans have $100 worth of brain capacity at any particular time. Liars need to spend this money carefully to avoid being detected. An example breakdown:

• $5 is spent on routine matters unrelated to the lie such as, responding to noises, thirst and body temperature.

• $5 may be spent on ensuring they don’t blink too often.

• $10 may be spent on controlling hands and arms.

• $10 may be spent on controlling the lower parts of the body.

• $10 may be spent to ensure they look the accuser in the eye sincerely.

• $10 may be spent on controlling how quickly they speak and how they speak.

• $10 may be spent on stressful thoughts associated with the consequences if they are caught out lying.

• $40 needs to be spent on processing the information received from a question, formulating a credible false response to cover the lie.

TOTAL = $100

These amounts will vary depending upon the circumstances and the individual involved. The above example highlights the person is running at 100 per cent of their concentration. If this person is questioned at length and has to recall previous lies and constantly manufacture new information to fit in with previous false information told to cover the lie, the liar will need to add to the $40 account. Considering we only have $100 worth of concentration, the money must be transferred from somewhere else and this occurs to the detriment of the other channel.

For example; a liar is asked a particularly difficult question, one that is very difficult to respond to quickly and naturally and the $40 worth of concentration is not enough. The liar then looks down and focuses on an object to buy some time to think, before responding with the answer. What has actually happened is that the liar has hit cognitive overload, there is a ‘nil balance’ in the $40 account. The liar needs to balance the accounts by transferring $10 from the ‘ensuring they look the accuser in the eye sincerely’ account, to make sure there is enough cash left to formulate an appropriate verbal response. This reveals two things to the lie detector; first, that person has stopped engaging in sincere eye contact (a ‘deception clue’) and secondly, there has been a significant pause before responding to the question (another ‘deception clue’). An innocent person, because they don’t need to monitor the various channels, may have as much as $80 worth of concentration available to process received information from a question and to formulate an appropriate response. The responses of a person telling the truth appear smooth and natural because cognitive overload is not being reached. There is a healthy balance in all accounts – proving that telling truth can be a good investment!

The more an individual lies (answering a number of questions), the more they have to concentrate on what they are saying – the less they are able to self-monitor and self-control. If they concentrate wholly on self-monitoring and controlling non-verbal clues, they will not be able to maintain a convincing verbal lie and it will either not make logical sense or sound unconvincing, as they have reached mental overload.

Dramatic representations of mental overload are often seen in Hollywood crime movies, where detectives ask the suspect a series of hard-hitting questions in quick succession. This increases the pressure to such a degree that the suspect can no longer go on lying and makes admissions or confesses. While this is occurring fictitiously in ‘movie land’, the principle of what is being demonstrated is accurate. The suspect cannot answer a number of questions quickly in a natural way (as each needs to be fabricated) and appear innocent by controlling body movement, as the cognitive load is too much. The suspect becomes mentally bankrupt.

When attempting to detect if an individual is lying, you may want to ask the person a number of questions and see if you can cause bankruptcy! If you can, the information the person provides verbally will be illogical; not making any sense, or the person will exhibit obvious lying signs, such as fidgeting, abruptly changing the subject or having an extended pause before replying.

The Lying Response

Phase 1. The Emotional Response.

Recognition of the consequences of lying. The liar experiences guilt, fear, stress and occasionally excitement. There are few visual signs in this phase.

Phase 2. The Sympathetic Nervous Response.

The body in ‘fight or flight’ mode. The nervous system reacts to the guilt and shows a cluster of ‘deceit clues’- eye contact is broken, one leg starts to shake and the fingers start to tap.

Phase 3. The Cognitive Response.

A counter-measure designed to hide the lying signs. The hands hold the table to hide fidgeting, the ankles are locked and braced against the chair to stop movement and eye contact is resumed.

Summary of main points

Broadly speaking there are three responsive phases after a lie is told:

Phase One: Emotional Response: Recognition by the liar of the falsehood told, which leads to feelings of guilt, fear, stress and on occasion excitement. How great an impact this will have on the person and their behaviour is predominantly determined by the magnitude of the consequences of being caught out. For example, a small lie will only have a small amount of emotion attached to it. A major deception, such as infidelity, crime or lying to secure a business contract or employment, will usually result in a noticeable increase in these emotions, making them easier to detect.

Phase Two: Sympathetic Nervous Response: The impact of guilt, fear, stress or excitement on the liar, which results in ‘deceit clues’, such as finger tapping, fidgeting, talking too quickly, avoiding eye contact and rapid eye movement.

Phase Three: Cognitive Response: A counter-measure attempt by the liar to cover up the ‘deceit clues’. This is more easily done using highly conductive channels (areas of the body over which the liar easily controls i.e. hands and eye contact). These areas shouldn’t be discounted. However, concentrating on areas with less control such as pupil size, lower body movements and micro-expressions will be more productive.

The lying response sequence: If the Emotional Response is fear (phase one) and this causes the liar to tap their foot (phase two), the person will attempt to hide their leg movement (under a table or bracing the legs), to disguise guilt (phase three).

Mentally, we only have $100. Consider that humans have $100 worth of brain capacity at any particular time. Liars need to spend this money carefully to avoid being detected. If they invest too much in hiding deceit clues revealed through body movement, their explanation will not make logical sense. Conversely, if the answer makes sense, they may not have invested enough in hiding guilty body movement. If you ask for further clarification you may be able to cause mental bankruptcy, revealing an array of obvious deceit clues.

LIE-DETECTION PROCESS – IT’S MAGIC!

Most people have some idea about what indicates a person may be lying, for example fidgeting, sweating, and less eye contact. While these are valid symptoms of a person lying, having only a base level of knowledge in respect to lie detection can lead to highly inaccurate conclusions. For example, as we have discussed, increased eye contact can also be a sign of lying – the person knows they have lied and are attempting to appear sincere. So the knowledge or assumption that less eye contact is an iron-clad indicator of lying would lead to an incorrect lie detection. This lack of accurate knowledge can lead to suspecting innocent people of lying and liars being assessed as innocent. Unfortunately, in respect to the subject of lie detection it is true that a small amount of knowledge can be dangerous!

This is one of the motivations for my writing this book. If people are interested in becoming a Human Lie Detector, I would like to give them the best opportunity to be as accurate as possible. No doubt you would be aware how unpleasant it is to be accused of something you haven’t done. To avoid this as much as possible it is important that we apply a rigorous but simple process when detecting lies. This will increase your accuracy and the reliability of your detections.[20] I have broken the process down into five basic stages to create the MAGIC Lie Detection Model, an easy to remember lie detection process that may be applied to all situations. A summary of the MAGIC Lie Detection Model and its application can be found at the back of the book. The five stages of the model are:

1. Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie?

2. Ask Control Questions: To establish a behavioural baseline.

3. Guilt Questions: Ask Guilt Questions.

4. Indicators: Are there lying indicators in clue clusters?

5. Check Again: Re-examine.

By applying this simple process together with the knowledge of the lying signs (covered in the following section; Lying Signs) you will be well on your way to becoming an accurate Human Lie Detector.

Step 1: Motivation

Make an assessment about whether the person has a motivation to lie. As we previously discussed, motivations to lie include: to protect from embarrassment; to make a positive impression; to gain an advantage; and to avoid punishment. You’ll be more accurate if you remain objective, so it’s important to keep in mind that despite having the motivation to lie – the person could be telling the truth. Regardless, this is an important step, particularly if you identify ‘to gain an advantage’ or ‘to avoid punishment’ as a motivation to lie, as this could result in harmful lies being told.

Step 2: Ask Control Questions – establish a behavioural baseline

One of the reasons that lie detection is not an exact science and is difficult to undertake with a high degree of accuracy, is the vast number of variances in human behaviour in any given circumstance. For example, one of the common traits that indicate someone is lying is the inability to maintain eye contact. This can be true. However, in some cultures, liars will ‘naturally’ increase the amount of eye contact. Additionally, if a person does maintain eye contact, it doesn’t necessarily indicate innocence. As discussed earlier, this could be a deliberate counter-measure to simply project innocence. Adding more uncertainty is that avoiding eye contact is also a normal behaviour for some personality states e.g. shy, nervous or insecure. Furthermore, the circumstance itself may cause the person to avoid eye contact, as can be the case when there is a significant authoritative disparity between two people, such as a teacher and a young child. In this circumstance, regardless of whether a child is innocent or not, holding the gaze of their teacher is a difficult thing to do for a young child.

So do we need to understand every personality type and every expected cultural reaction for all given situations to detect lies? Absolutely not, there is a much simpler and more accurate way. When you turn on your ‘Liedar’ to identify if a person is lying, the first thing you must do is establish a behavioural baseline. To establish an individual’s behavioural baseline, you need to observe the verbal and non-verbal responses to questions that the person answers truthfully. Put simply, you need to ask questions that you already know the answer to or you know will be answered truthfully. These are called Control Questions.

As the person is answering these Control Questions in a truthful way, you observe (and remember) a number of their behaviours. Then you manipulate the conversation to an area where you feel the person may be lying and observe the behavioural characteristics again. At this point you make a comparison between the verbal and non-verbal behaviour in responses to questions the person answered truthfully against the responses to questions which you feel may have been answered untruthfully. If you identify changes in any of the lying clues (discussed in more detail below) then you may be on the path to identifying if the person is lying; or certainly an area that requires more probing.

Polygraph operators have used the technique of using Control Questions for many years. The polygraph or lie detector machine is physically attached to the person being questioned and monitors physiological activity such as heart rate, breathing patterns and Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), which is sweat gland activity. Effectively the polygraph monitors the ‘flight or fight’ response to questions. The operator asks Control Questions; ones they already know the answer to, such as the person’s name, gender and address. As this is occurring, the operator observes graphs on the machine that are recording the physiological responses. Then the operator will move on to asking direct questions about a suspicious activity and look for a change in the physiological responses being recorded by the polygraph. If there is a significant contrast between the responses to known truthful answers and suspected lies, the operator will conclude the person is lying.

I don’t believe a polygraph is a highly accurate lie detector and there are some very simple tactics that can be used to defeat it. However, the process that has been adopted during a polygraph examination is valid, and one we should replicate as Human Lie Detectors. The first step in this process is to establish a behavioural baseline (based on Control Questions) and contrast these responses against responses to suspected untruthful answers.

To establish a behavioural baseline you simply need to ask the person questions you know the answer to, or to which the person would logically answer truthfully. While you are doing this, you observe the deceit clues, such as eye contact, blink rate, and hand movements. It’s really worthwhile spending some time establishing a solid behavioural baseline, so when you do ask questions where you suspect the person may lie, a change in the response will be very obvious to you. So it’s best to take your time asking questions and observing.

Subtle Control Questions that fit naturally within a conversation are the best, so the person doesn’t realise it’s a test. Such as, ‘Are you still living at Johnsonville?’ or ‘Are you still driving the white Toyota?’ (When you know the person is). I also recommend asking the person to recall situations when you were present so you can judge the accuracy of the answer. For example, ‘Remember when we went to the tavern, was it there you first met Mike?’ or ‘Jenny, remember the office send-off for Robert, can you recall where you got the cake from?’ This is an ideal question if ‘Jenny’ was responsible for purchasing the cake, as she will recall this accurately and visualise it. As discussed in the Eye Movement section on page 62, observing individuals eyes can indicate whether they are recalling an event or fabricating an event. As such, a question like this will cause them to recall accurately what occurred and you can observe their eye movement.

It’s best practise to ask your Control Questions within a set period of time, such as at one meeting, party or business lunch for example. This way there will be consistency in the mental state of the person and the responses, be they truthful or untruthful. It is more unreliable to ask Control Questions over several days, as the person’s mental state, external distractions, and your memory are all vulnerable to change. Your Control Questions don’t all have to be asked within quick succession either – just within the same environment that you propose to ask the Guilt Questions – allowing a reliable contrast to be drawn.

I really encourage people to be patient and take time to establish a reliable behavioural baseline as this is the first critical step towards accurate lie detection and a good investment of your time – it will make signs of lying much more obvious to you.

Step 3: Guilt Questions – ask the Guilt Questions

When you feel you have observed the person’s responses to a number of Control Questions, it’s time to move on to the juicy stuff! To identify a liar you need to first provide the opportunity to lie. To do this you need to ask questions that provide the person the opportunity to answer truthfully or to lie – it’s their choice. To be an effective Human Lie Detector, you need to feel comfortable asking questions and be able to ask the questions in a natural way so they form part of a normal conversation.

If individuals suspect you are asking questions in an effort to identify their guilt, they will be able to initiate a type of counter-measure in an attempt to hide their guilt, such as ensuring they maintain eye contact. You don’t want to provide them an opportunity to put their defences up, so it’s best to ask questions as part of a normal conversation. Sometimes this won’t be possible or desirable and you may, after establishing a reliable baseline, choose to ask quite direct questions or challenge the person outright.

Keep in mind when challenging people, even if they are innocent they will change their behaviour in response to a challenge and this may not indicate guilt, just that they are being defensive or are antagonised because their integrity is being challenged. As such, it is best practice to subtly ask questions around which you feel a person is lying while continuing to observe for signs of deceit. However, if you choose to challenge the person, take into account some of the change in their behaviour may not be as a direct result of guilt. Taking this into account, if you have taken the time to establish a reliable baseline and observe relevant lying signs, you will still be able to identify the difference between a person being defensive and the person being guilty.

In my opinion, an intelligent strategy, after having identified someone is lying, is to not allow the person to know that you have identified this. This strategy prevents liars from modifying their behaviour when next you speak with them – it prevents them from commencing counter-measures as they feel they can lie to you at will. Having the capacity to reliably identify when a person is lying may give you a future mental advantage or additional protection.

Step 4: Indicators – are there lying indicators in clue clusters?

Because there is such a wide range of varying circumstances and personality traits across humanity, there is not a single deception clue that can be relied upon to accurately identify if a person has lied. To be an accurate Human Lie Detector, it is best to look for ‘clusters’ of deceptive signs rather than an individual sign. To rely upon a singular sign can be highly inaccurate and result in an undesirable outcome. For example, it was mentioned previously that pupil dilation (pupils enlarged) could be a sign of lying. However, pupil dilation can occur for a number of reasons, including feelings of pleasure and attraction. It would be most unfortunate if a reader of this book decided that increased pupillary size by itself was a dead giveaway. Particularly if the reader’s partner came home with a bottle of wine and was looking forward to a romantic night and said ‘I love you’ (while demonstrating dilated pupils) only to be accused of lying by the misguided Human Lie Detector. So much for a romantic night!

It’s much safer and more accurate to look for a cluster of clues; a group of deceit clues that occur in quick succession. When this occurs in response to a question, your ‘Liedar’ should lock on.

Step 5: Check again – re-examine

Once you have established a reliable baseline, asked Guilt Questions about the suspected activity and observed a cluster of clues, it’s time to move into the Re-examination phase. The purpose of this phase is to validate your observations of the ‘clue cluster’. To do this, you need to ask some more Control Questions, and then ask the same Guilt Question or one very similar to the one that initiated the clue cluster that you observed. This is best done by rephrasing the initial Guilt Question and raising it again as naturally as possible. When you ask the rephrased question, once again look for the deceit clues that were previously in stark contrast to the responses to your Control Questions. What you are looking for at this point is a replication of the same or similar response to a very similar question. For example, in response to your initial Guilt Question, you observed the person immediately avoid your gaze and change their tone of voice. When you ask the rephrased question, pay close attention to the gaze and voice tone of the person to see if it changes again. If it does, it’s highly likely that person is lying. You may also want to observe some additional lying signs for further confirmation such as micro-expressions and text-bridging (explained in more detail on pages 84 and 111).

Scenario: After your Control Questions, you asked the salesman the question, ‘Is this the best deal you can give me on this car?’ and he increased his blinking and rubbed his nose as he responded with, ‘Yes that’s the lowest deal I can offer you’. Then you talk in more general terms in relation to the car, asking more questions. These may be control-type questions that the salesman will answer truthfully. For example, you ask the salesman, ‘Does this model come with a sun-roof?’ and ‘What is the fuel consumption?’ while you observe his blink rate and how often he rubs his nose. After a few more general questions you ask the Guilt Question, ‘So is the best deal you can offer me, $35,000, I thought you might be able to do better than that?’ If the salesman again rubs his nose and his blink rate increases – he is most likely lying. Your next step may be to suggest to him that you will visit another dealership or that you would like to see if he could talk to his manager and see if a better deal can be struck – because you know it can!

Re-examination is a good safety measure for you to ensure that the clue cluster you initially observed is replicated similarly in respect to the rephrased question. This will increase accuracy and minimise the chance of a coincidental response. For example, it may have been the case (in the scenario) when asked the Guilt Question, the salesman rubbed his nose because it was itchy and at the same time he had a small particle or eyelash irritate his eye.

By re-examining and observing the same behavioural response on two occasions, both in stark contrast to the responses to your Control Questions, you are able to validate your suspicions. Equally important is that you are able to discount your suspicions if you don’t see a replication of the same response – the person could be telling the truth. Remaining objective and approaching each individual with an open mind as to whether the person is guilty or not, will have you best placed to discern lies from the truth.

With practice, you should be able to carry out this five-step process a number of times as part of the same conversation. You can repeat the process as many times as you feel is necessary to validate your suspicion, or equally as important, discount it.

MAGIC in Action

Step 1. Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie? Some salespeople are very motivated to lie as they work on a sales commission or sales performance based salary.

Step 2. Ask Control Questions (ones the person will answer truthfully) and observe eye contact, hand movements, blink rate, tone of voice and body movements etc, to establish a behavioural baseline.

Steps 3 & 4 conducted simultaneously. Guilt Questions: Ask Guilt Questions; provide the opportunity for the person to tell the truth or to lie – it’s their choice.

Indicators: Are there lying indicators in clusters in response to the Guilt Question?

Step 5 (two parts). Check Again: Re-examine using Control Questions followed by Guilt Questions and observe if the clue cluster returns.

Summary of main points:

The MAGIC Lie Detection Model is an easy-to-remember process that may be applied to all situations. You may find it useful to use this summary to refresh your memory. If you would like more detailed information, I suggest you read the entire section titled ‘Lie Detection Process – it’s MAGIC!’

Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie. Motivations include: to protect from embarrassment; to make a positive impression; to gain an advantage; and to avoid punishment. You’ll be more accurate if you remain objective, so don’t assume they are lying – be aware that the person may have the motivation to lie, but is actually telling the truth.

Ask Control Questions, to establish a baseline: When you initially turn on your ‘Liedar’, observe the verbal and non-verbal responses to Control Questions – ones the person will answer truthfully. This will give you a behavioural baseline. Take your time doing this, as it will create a reliable platform to then detect changes in behaviour if the person lies.

Guilt Questions: To identify a liar you need to first provide the opportunity to lie. For this to occur, you must ask a Guilt Question or two – subtly. This is best done as part of a normal conversation as it denies the opportunity for the person to hide deceit clues from you.

Indicators: Are there lying indicators that stand out to you, from the baseline behaviour you observed when asking the Control Questions? Did they occur in a clue cluster and in quick succession? When this occurs in response to a guilt question, your ‘Liedar’ should lock on. Some deceit clues are listed at the end of this section.

Check Again: Re-examine. To do this, repeat stages M.A.G.I. (above) and validate your observations of the clue cluster. If you observe a similar clue cluster to a similar Guilt Question, it’s likely you’ve caught yourself a liar.

Some Deceit Clues: Finger, hand, leg, foot movement, or absence of movement; speech pattern changes, increased mispronunciation, throat clearing, exaggerated swallowing or stuttering; inconsistent eye movement (fabricating not recalling); less eye contact or vastly increased eye contact; itchy nose; closed body posture, leaning back or placing arms across the body to create a barrier; hands in front of mouth or eyes; extended blink followed by a hand to the face; contradictions between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is gestured’ (nodding ‘yes’ but saying ‘no’); feigning tiredness, e.g. fake yawning; increased embellishment and overly detailed answers; and conflicting micro-expressions.

LYING SIGNS

There are many individual deceit clues or lying signs a person may exhibit when lying. In this section, we’ll cover the majority of known and proven behavioural indicators of lying. This will get you focused in the right areas and get you started quickly. However, you shouldn’t feel limited to the deceit clues in this book. If you follow the five-step MAGIC model we looked at in the previous section, you may discover other indicators that specifically apply to a particular person. Remember, it’s a change of behaviour you are looking for between the Control Questions and the Guilt Questions. For example, I know a person who usually carries her glasses with her, she wears them periodically. After establishing a behavioural baseline, on each occasion I ask a Guilt Question of this person, she puts her glasses on as she answers. The most likely reason she does this on each occasion is that she is attempting to place a barrier between her eyes and mine in an effort to hide her guilty eyes. I’ve not seen any academic research that supports this particular behaviour as a lying sign. However, by following the five step MAGIC Model and having an understanding of counter-measures that liars may use, I have found a very reliable deceit clue that applies to this person in particular.

To ensure the accuracy of your initial attempts at lie detection, I suggest you focus primarily on the lying signs discussed below. However, as you become more practised with the MAGIC Lie Detection Model process and more observant of changes in behaviour, you can widen your focus and see if you can identify lying signs specific to particular people.

When you commence putting your newfound knowledge into practice, you will notice some people are more vulnerable to ‘leaking’ a particular type of deceit clue. If you don’t allow deceivers the knowledge that you can identify when they are lying (preventing them the opportunity to hide behind a counter-measure) they will continue to exhibit these lying signs, making it very easy to identify their deceit on future occasions. The person I mentioned before still puts her glasses on whenever she lies. In fact, I won’t ask Guilt Questions of this person unless I know she has her glasses with her. Of course this lying sign has an expiry date – when she needs to wear glasses constantly!

Most people do exhibit some sort of a lying sign when they lie. As we discussed earlier, the signs of lying become more obvious when there is a large cognitive load or where there is a lot of emotion attached to the lie (such as significant consequences if they’re caught, feelings of guilt, anxiety or excitement). When a lie is told, if further questioned, the liar will need to create more lies in support of lies told previously. This increases the amount of emotion, which can lead to an increase in the amount of lying signs that are leaked. This occurs with almost everyone, but not all. This doesn’t apply to pathological liars who lie continuously, often believing their lies, which are usually told by exaggeration with a view to making an impression or gaining an advantage. For example, a pathological liar may tell people that Mick Jagger has been a close friend for years, or that President Obama lived in the same street or went to the same school as the liar, if it allows them to manipulate how they are positioned within a social or professional group. Dangerously, pathological liars believe these lies and have difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction, making it difficult to identify their lying signs as the emotional component as it is either mitigated or absent altogether.

Pathological liars feel little or no emotion when they lie and they lie constantly. This makes them particularly tricky customers, as it’s almost impossible to establish a reliable behavioural baseline because they lie so often, causing the baseline itself to be based on lies. Additionally, due to the lack of emotion when lying, they don’t demonstrate the usual lying signs and as they don’t lie with any particular motive, it is difficult to differentiate between constant immaterial trivial lies and when they are telling a significant lie. Fortunately there aren’t many pathological liars in society, however if you do encounter one (and it will be obvious to you), I still recommend adopting the five-step MAGIC Model.

Perhaps the best way to deal with a pathological liar is to structure your questions such that they can only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. This way the truth will be the answer they don’t give!

Another tricky group of customers are the ones who have told the same lie on many previous occasions – the rehearsed liar. As they have practised and rehearsed the material on several occasions, the response appears more fluid. This is because there isn’t a heavy cognitive load on the mind (because they’re not fabricating as they are speaking) and there is also less emotion attached to the lie (as they have told the lie many times and have been desensitised). Interestingly studies have shown that rehearsed lies sound more convincing, but when they are told, the person displays more non-verbal signs of deception. While rehearsed liars may sound more convincing, to the lie detector they look guiltier.[21]

This section will provide you some great deceit clues to identify when a person is lying and I encourage you to practise these techniques as often as possible. Challenging family members to try and lie to you can be good fun. Importantly, this also can provide you accurate feedback when you get it wrong – don’t worry, they’ll let you know. When you do make a mistake, review what made you think it was a lie and learn from it, this will make you harder to beat next time. Also, challenge them again following the MAGIC Model and look for different deceit clues.

When you identify a reliable deceit clue of a family member, try not to let that person know what the sign is. Until the family member can pick up what the clue is, it won’t be possible to hide it from you and lying to you successfully will be impossible. How frustrating for them – enjoy it!

While I don’t prioritise a particular lying sign above others, I do believe the focus of the astute lie detector should be on areas that individuals are unaware of or over which they have little control. While highly conductive-channelled responses such as finger movement and eye contact cannot be discounted, it is the areas liars don’t expect you are assessing or over which they have little control that can provide you a greater insight, such as micro-expressions, text-bridging, and lower limb movement. In the following sections we’ll cover all the areas that will provide you the best information for accurately detecting lying signs.

It’s written all over the face

The eyes

The eyes are an incredibly valuable source of information that humans naturally rely upon to assess other people’s personality and emotional states. This is particularly evident when we look at photographs, as we cannot rely upon body movement and speech. When shown a photograph of a person, the first place we look is the eyes in an effort to assess the emotion of that person. Try this yourself – look at a photo of a stranger and see where you look first, on almost every occasion it will be the eyes. We have a natural thirst to obtain information from the eyes. Without access to the eyes, for example when a person wears sunglasses, we are inhibited in our assessment of other people. Would you feel comfortable making a major purchase from a salesman, or forming a trusting relationship with a person, who wore sunglasses all the time and you never once were able to see the person’s eyes?

This book reveals a number of the lying signs or deceit clues individuals may leak when attempting to deceive you. My favourite and most successful area to focus upon to identify if a person is lying is the eyes. It appears very difficult for people to fabricate information or invent a story and maintain normal eye behaviour. For example, you may ask a person to answer a question very quickly. This usually results in the person’s eyes moving quickly from side to side and looking downwards slightly while attempting to get the brain in order to respond. Similarly, a person’s eyes may stall or freeze in a particular position as they attempt to respond to a question. It’s as if our brain and our eyes are hardwired together and when the brain is put under pressure, the eyes reveal it. The three key areas of the eyes to focus on are: eye contact, blink rate and eye movement, which are discussed below. When you start practising your lie detection skills I suggest you commence with the eyes.

Eye contact: Eyes are said to be the window to the soul. They can also present a window of opportunity for the astute Human Lie Detector, but not solely by the method most commonly thought of – eye contact.

Most people when asked how they identify a liar will state they observe the person’s eyes and see if the person can maintain regular eye contact. As previously mentioned, eyes are controlled by a highly conductive channel that provides a lot of feedback to the brain. This allows liars a degree of control and they can therefore manipulate the amount of eye contact to assist with disguising guilt. Often liars will deliberately increase the amount of eye contact in the hope of appearing more sincere. However, via your Control Questions you should be able to ascertain what the normal amount of eye contact is for any particular person. Sometimes it can be very obvious in situations where the person has a certain amount of eye contact in response to Control Questions and as soon as Guilt Questions are asked, the person increases eye contact significantly. Again, what you are looking for is an increase in eye contact or a decrease in eye contact in response to Guilt Questions. The amount of eye contact can be manipulated , but it is difficult for a person transitioning from telling the truth to lying to maintain consistency. So look for inconsistency.

HANDY HINT: Children and inexperienced liars, or ones that are surprised by your question, will immediately have less eye contact. They will instantaneously look away, may raise their hand in front of their eyes to break contact, and may pretend to be distracted by something and look away or rub their eyes. When they have composed themselves they will bounce back to having normal eye contact. It’s this initial break in eye contact that is a great clue for you to look for.

Blink Rate: Our normal rate of blinking during conversation is about 26 times per minute, though this can increase significantly during periods of stress.[22] Regardless of whether a person is stressed or not, if you observe a significant change in the blink rate (slower or faster) when you ask your Guilt Questions, compared to the blink rate during Control Questions, this is a fair indicator of deceit. A person may blink slower when answering Guilt Questions for one of two reasons: first, the person wants to break eye contact, but doesn’t want to turn their head away as that would be an obvious sign of guilt; second, the person’s mind is consuming a lot of energy fabricating a response (cognitive overload – close to mental bankruptcy) and this causes the person to have an extended blink time. Similarly, liars may increase their blink rate or flutter their eyes when lying, as it is also a sign of wanting to minimise the amount of eye contact. The deceit motivation for liars subconsciously changing their blink rate isn’t something we need to concentrate on, as our focus is simply to observe a change in the rate between Control Questions and Guilt Questions.

A word of warning. People may extend their blink time, or blink frequently (fluttering their eyes), or break eye contact simply because they don’t wish to answer the question. This reticence could simply be because they are uncomfortable with the information you’re asking for and would like to blank it out. People will also increase their blink rate when they are thinking hard about something. This something may be the truth. So a change in blink rate by itself is not a reliable sign of deceit, it needs to be taken into account with other lying signs.

HANDY HINT: If there is an extended blink followed by a hand movement to the face, this is a fair indicator the person may be lying. These movements can indicate the person subconsciously wants to block out your presence by forming a barrier (the hand) and are also attempting to blank you out (visually) by extending the blink time.

Eye Movement: Another very interesting sign to observe is the movement of the eyes themselves. With some individuals (but not all) this can tell you very quickly if they are remembering or creating/fabricating. This technique is based on Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), which was initiated by the work of John Grinder and Richard Bandler at the University of California in the 1970s.[23] NLP is an entire subject in its own right and there are many companies that offer training in this subject if you want to pursue it. Rather than bombard you with pages of academic theory on NLP, I think it’s best to just give you the critical information that relates directly to lie detection.

When you experiment with this technique, you’ll notice with some people it works very well and not at all with others. As such, it should be used in addition to other lying signs before determining a person is lying. I highly recommend after you read this section, that you have a go at it. Try it out on a friend or family member, even a child. Have some fun with it.

The basic premise of how this works is that your eyes move in particular directions depending upon what your mind is doing. We are hardwired into this practice and it’s very difficult to change or manipulate consistently in an attempt to try and disguise what you’re thinking. People are quite capable of disguising the movement of their eyes when they are conscious of doing so. However, this is not natural, nor is it possible to maintain such a high degree of control consistently. That’s one of the reasons it’s a worthwhile area to look for deceit clues.

NOTE: NLP has been criticised and discounted by some and highly acclaimed and supported by others. I have found the technique to work very effectively with some people and not at all with others. Regardless, having some knowledge of NLP provides you with another weapon in your lie detection arsenal.

As I am writing this book for you – all the directions of left and right are given from your position – observing the person. If I say the person will look right, that means your right (their left). Because some of the eye movements you will be attempting to observe can be very rapid, it’s important that you instinctively know which direction means what. As such, I have created a model specifically for lie detection purposes.

When asked a question, right-handed individuals eyes should:

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – right (your right), if they are remembering something that actually happened. This indicates to you they have actually experienced what they are telling you in response to your question; or,

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – left (your left), if they are creating something in their own mind, something they have not seen or heard before. This indicates to you the person has not seen or heard what they are telling you about in response to your question. They are creating/fabricating.

NOTE: The direction of eye movement for a left-handed person will be opposite to the above.

Because you will be attempting to assess a number of lying signs simultaneously, for simplicity it’s best to just concentrate on the upper 180° movements of the eyes. The lower 180° movements also demonstrate cognitive activity, though not as pertinent to lie detection. Because eye movement can be very rapid, particularly when people are recalling or creating a very quick response such as ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it’s best if you can ask a question that requires them to talk for some time. This will increase the amount of time the eyes will track back and forth or remain in a particular position, allowing you more time to assess whether the person is creating/fabricating or recalling an actual event. Also, when a person is answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’, they may naturally blink, which will hide the direction of the eyes, or deliberately blink for an extended period of time before responding. Either way, you will have lost the opportunity to assess the reaction. So try to come up with a question that will require a response using a number of words or sentences if possible.

Try this! Ask a child or family member (preferably a child, as the signs are more obvious) to sit down opposite you. Sit so you can observe the eyes clearly and ask them to describe truthfully in as much detail as possible, a place or event that you have both been to (so they tell you the truth). Have them to talk about it in detail for a while. Observe the direction of the eyes, but don’t tell them what you are looking for, or they will be able to disguise it. Then ask them to make up an untruthful story about an event that occurred at a place where they have not been. You want them to fabricate/create images. For example they could tell you about the time they went camping in Africa and rode on a wild elephant. Have them expand on the answer in detail. Ask them to describe what the camping area looked like, what other animals were there, did they feed them, what did the elephant look like in real life, what were the trees like, and what colour the tent was. Ask them to make up a story about what they did on that camping trip. As you have them expanding on this fictitious story – you should notice their eyes tracking in a different direction to when they were telling the truth. If you do, this is NLP in practice.

HANDY HINT: If the person looks right, it is right (correct/truthful). Right = Right. If the person looks left, it is a lie (created/fabricated). Left = Lie.

Rule Exceptions:

1. Sometimes a person will look straight ahead with little or no eye movement with the eyes appearing to be unfocused. This is also a sign that the person is recalling an actual event.

2. As with all lying signs, some will manifest quite profoundly with some people and not at all with others, so you may find this technique doesn’t work with all people. This is one of the reasons this book provides so many different clues to look for when a person is lying. If one particular technique doesn’t work on a person, you can rely on several others and still improve your accuracy.

While I have attempted to make this a very simple rule to follow, as with all human behaviour there are no fixed rules. The above rule indicates the responses for a right handed/right orientated person. A left-handed/orientated person will have the exact opposite eye movement in response to questions. There are also a very small minority of right-handed people whose eyes will react, as would a left-handed person. All this might sound very confusing, but it doesn’t have to be.

All you need to do is identify the orientation of the person during your Control Questioning. Simply ask the person about an event that you know they have experienced and observe the direction of the eyes. You may ask a number of questions to confirm the orientation. Then when you ask the Guilt Question, if you observe the eyes moving in the opposite direction from when the Control Questions were asked, it is likely the person is fabricating their response.

Remember, it’s not the eye movement alone that will indicate the person has lied. It’s eye movement that indicates the person is creating/fabricating something together with other lying signs, forming a ‘clue cluster’ that indicates deception. When looking for eye movement, remember it can be extremely rapid so you need to be very observant.

Okay, let’s put this into practice – time for some fun!

Step 1. Select a family member or friend as your victim. Ask the person some questions about the events or experiences you know they have been through and observe the movement of their eyes. This allows you to observe the orientation. If right-handed, the person will most likely be looking across to the (your) right or upwards to the (your) right when recalling what you have asked.

Step 2. Then ask the person to tell you four things they did last weekend, but make one of them a lie. As they are doing this observe the eye movement. The answer with the different eye movement is the lie; because the person has fabricated this answer and the eyes tracked differently.

NOTE: Remember sometimes people will look straight ahead with little or no eye movement when recalling real events, if they do this naturally this drill won’t work. However, if your victim is not one of these people (based on your Control Questions) and tries to be particularly difficult and just stares directly at you in the hope that this will throw you off the scent, then pay particular attention to any change in the blink rate and the speech pattern. If there is a pause just before one of the answers, one of the answers is given more slowly, or delivered faster than the other three – that’s the lie.

HANDY HINT: Liars may look away very briefly as they tell a lie to break eye contact, however, they may also disguise their guilt by looking back very quickly. The break in eye contact is a giveaway of guilt and they look back searching for feedback from you on whether they got away with the lie. At this point remain stony-faced (don’t give away any clues) and pause the conversation. This is very difficult for liars to deal with, as they don’t receive any feedback from you, either verbal or facial, as to whether they got away with the lie. Often this causes them to start talking and it is this that will really expose them; the speech will be rapid, overly detailed, illogical and/or their eyes will dart back and forth as they assess the situation and replay their answer in their head making their own assessment on whether they got away with the lie or not. Liars hate silence!

Earlier in the book I mentioned that a person’s pupils might dilate when lying. This can be another useful indicator, but unless you have a visual recording of the person such as a police interview tape or media interview of high quality, it’s very difficult to monitor and assess. Additionally there are some very small movements around the eyes that can be indicators of deception; these will be covered under the section titled Micro-expressions on page 84. However, in respect to the eyes, the three primary areas that you will find most useful to monitor are eye contact, blink rate and eye movement.

Often liars will deliberately increase the amount of eye contact in the hope of appearing more sincere.

A liar may look away immediately after having lied.

A liar may raise their hand in front of their eyes.

A liar may pretend to be distracted by rubbing their eyes and looking away.

After breaking initial contact they may look back for feedback to see if the lie has been accepted.

Creating or fabricating something. Looks to the left.

Recalling a real event. Looks to the right.

The nose knows

If you are ever attempting to check the truthfulness of a small-carved wooden boy called Pinocchio, then I suggest you observe the length of his nose as you ask the Guilt Questions. Unfortunately human noses don’t increase or decrease in size when telling lies, but they can still assist you with detecting deception.

As a matter of course people will touch their nose from time to time – this is normal. However, some liars will touch their nose with increased frequency. During your Control Questions observe how often the person touches their nose; perhaps not at all. When you ask your Guilt Questions, if the person commences touching the nose, then I recommend undertaking a re-examination as this could be a lying sign. If this occurs a second time during the re-examination phase; it is unlikely it was a coincidence, more likely a lie.

Liars touch their nose either as a method of momentarily covering their mouth with their hand (giving them a comfort/protection barrier) or because the tissues within their nose become engorged with blood causing an itching sensation.[24] The liar then necessarily touches the nose to alleviate this itchy feeling. Doctor Charles Wolf (University of Utah) and Doctor Alan Hirsch (Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation, Chicago) reviewed in detail the testimony by former President Bill Clinton in relation to the Monica Lewinsky matter.[25] In addition to other lying signs that Clinton exhibited during his testimony, Doctors Hirsch and Wolf found when the former president was telling the truth, he barely touched his nose at all. However, when he was less than truthful, he touched his nose regularly.[26]

In addition to Clinton’s testimony, which can be found on the Internet, if you have the time it’s a worthwhile exercise doing Internet video searches on people who have been interviewed by police or media after which they have proven to be lying. While you don’t have the opportunity to ask Control Questions, you may notice these people touching their nose frequently. On its own, nose touching isn’t proof positive of deception, but when it occurs in the Re-examination phase together with other lying signs, your ‘Liedar’ is accurate.

Liars touch their nose more frequently; partially to cover the mouth and also due to increased blood flow to the nose causing an itchy feeling.

The mouth

As a child, my father used to say to me, ‘David, I can always tell when you’re lying – your mouth is moving and words are coming out!’ Gee, thanks Dad. Regardless of how truthful or otherwise the statement was, he was correct about one thing – the mouth can be observed to detect lies. This section will look at lying signs of the mouth rather than what is actually said by the mouth. Verbal signs of lying will be covered later under the section, Speaking with forked tongue on page 111.

There are two common tactics used by people who are lying – they either attempt to hide their mouth or hold their mouth closed. It’s as if the liar subconsciously wants to hide the source of the lie itself. You may have noticed particularly with young children, who have yet to learn how to hide their deceit effectively, that when they tell a lie or inadvertently say something that they wished they hadn’t, they instantaneously put their hand across their mouth. This is sometimes a very overt and animated gesture. The same principle applies to adults, however, the signs are more subtle as we have learned self-control and also to minimise the signs of lying. Adult liars may attempt to hide their mouth as they lie by turning slightly away from you, holding a pen to their mouth as they speak or, as mentioned in the previous section, they may cover their mouth with their hand as they touch their nose.

The next time you are with a group of people or attending a meeting where a discussion is taking place, see if you can spot a person who has their fingers or a singular finger across their lips. Sometimes you may observe people actually pinching their lips together with their fingers or resting a thumb under the chin while the index finger rests across their lips. The person who is doing this in the group would like to say something but is holding back, either through courtesy (waiting for their turn to speak) or disagrees with what is being said and is holding back from saying so. The same holds true for some liars; they’ll pinch their lip or put their fingers across their lips in what appears to be a subconscious attempt to stop the truth from slipping out.

Another way the mouth can be complicit in deception is by manufacturing a false smile. I’m sure there have been occasions where you have observed a smile and you can sense it’s not genuine. The most obvious way of identifying a genuine smile from an insincere one is that a fake smile primarily only affects the lower half of the face, predominantly with the mouth alone, and – the eyes don’t really get involved. Take the opportunity to look in the mirror and manufacture a smile using the lower half your face only. When you do this, assess how happy your face really looks – is it genuine? A genuine smile will impact on the muscles and wrinkles around the eyes and more subtly, the skin between the eyebrow and upper eyelid is lowered slightly with true enjoyment. The genuine smile can impact on the entire face. It’s as if when there is true happiness to be had, the whole face wants to join the party, crow’s feet and all!

A genuine smile is also formed more slowly on the face than a manufactured smile and is always symmetrical. There’s a pleasant emotional build-up that creates a real smile, and this takes time. A manufactured smile doesn’t have the real emotion attached to it and is simply a decision to make certain muscles act in a particular way, which happens much faster than with a genuine smile. For the same reason a genuine smile fades more slowly from the face, it doesn’t simply switch off like a manufactured smile.

HANDY HINT: If you want to know if you have really amused a person, in addition to watching for muscle movement around the eyes, watch how slowly the smile leaves the person’s face. Having a genuine smile is like having an old friend over for dinner, you don’t want them to leave quickly, and similarly, the genuine smile departs slowly. Having a fake smile is like saying goodbye to a pushy door-to-door salesman; you can’t shut the door quick enough!

The fact that a person manufactures a smile doesn’t necessarily mean the person is lying. People that do this may be smiling to cover up the fact that they are unhappy, or want to appear pleasant to you or are simply being polite. However, if the smile comes from their mouth alone it’s not genuine. Statistically, liars smile less often than truthful people.[27] However, as you are aware liars will also deliberately manufacture a smile as a counter-measure to indicate friendliness or that they are comfortable and relaxed about your questions. For this reason it is important for you to be able to distinguish between a genuine and a fake smile.

HANDY HINT: A great way to practise distinguishing between real and false smiles is by watching movies. Observe actors faces when they are smiling or laughing, particularly around the eyes. I find this very interesting as you can quite quickly see whether the actor is actually laughing or is acting (smiling with their mouth only). Sometimes in a scene when two actors are laughing together, they really are laughing.

Another way the mouth may attempt to lie to you is by creating a deliberate yawn. If you are talking at length with a person who is lying, sometimes they will yawn. This is most likely a counter-strategy to try and convince you they are not feeling any stress. Again, if you notice a person starts to yawn (usually combined with the body leaning back and arms and/or legs spreading out widely) when you’re asking your Guilt Questions, return to some Control Questions and see if the yawning stops, if so proceed to the Re-examination phase.

Other possible signs of deceit from the mouth include dry lips, lips with less colour or very tense pursed lips – held together by muscles rather than using the hands to stop the truth slipping out. These can also be signs of stress unrelated to deception but are another clue to look out for.

Scenario: I recently watched an in-depth and extended interview with a famous sportsman. He was seated on a sofa with his wife and was being asked a whole range of questions. This allowed me to observe his behavioural baseline.

The interviewer asked, ‘You two have been married for some time, you seem happy, but it must be hard being separated so often?’ The sportsman answered, ‘Yes, we are happy and it is hard but I’m committed to my sport’. The sportsman’s body language and all other signs remained consistent with that of the previous part of the interview. However, the interviewer then asked, ‘So there is no girl chasing or affairs going on, like Tiger Woods did?’ Immediately and for the first time the sportsman adjusted his seating position, turned his head away from the interviewer and rubbed his nose as he answered, ‘No, nothing like that’. For legal reasons I can’t mention the person, however I’m confident that in response to that question, he lied. There was an obvious clue cluster in response to that question, and that question alone throughout the interview. He was lying.

Fake smile: The mouth can be complicit in deception by manufacturing a false smile. The fake smile is a polite smile.

Real smile: In the real smile the muscles around the eyes are triggered and the whole face joins in. If you cover the lower half of both photos just under the nose and observe the eyes - it becomes obvious which is the real smile and which is fake.

Liars may hold their mouth closed or pinch their lips.

Liars may attempt to hide their mouth with their hands or by turning their body slightly away.

Liars may attempt to cover their mouth with an item such as a pen.

Micro-expressions – flashes of falsehood

Identification and interpretation of micro-expressions were significantly advanced by the work of Professor Ekman, a pioneer in this subject area. The popular television show “Lie to Me” dramatised some of the pioneering work of Professor Ekman, who is loosely represented as Dr Cal Lightman (played by Tim Roth) in the series. The topic itself is a subject in its own right and requires in-depth study of many academic journals, articles and research results to have a comprehensive understanding – but you don’t need to endure this, I’ve done all the hard work for you! However, if you wanted to learn more about this particular aspect of lie detection I recommend undertaking the online training offered by Professor Ekman’s group.[28]

The nature of this book is not to provide an in-depth academic understanding on all facets of lie detection, just the crucial segments of information that will quickly assist the reader on the path to becoming a more effective lie detector; micro-expressions form an essential part of this.

As we discussed earlier in the book, when people lie they feel a certain amount of emotion (Emotional Response), which can vary from stress, guilt and anxiety to a certain feeling of exhilaration. These emotions can lead to certain physiological changes (Sympathetic Nervous Response), which can result in certain guilty symptoms such as fidgeting and avoiding eye contact etc. Earlier in the book we also discussed the fact that liars will deliberately instigate counter-measures to hide the symptoms of their guilt (Cognitive Response). We also discovered that some symptoms were easy for the liar to disguise and control (e.g. hand movement and eye contact) and others were not (blink rate and eye movement). Micro-expressions are expressions of emotion displayed on the face of a person. They appear extremely briefly (as quickly as 1/25 of a second) and are usually missed by the casual observer. These micro-expressions are so instantaneous; the person expressing them has no control over them. Therefore, a liar cannot instigate a counter-measure in an effort to mask these emotions from you. Micro-expressions display the true inner-emotion of a person before there is time to hide it. This makes micro-expressions a fantastic tool for the Human Lie Detector.

Another reason why they are so useful is that regardless of culture, race or upbringing the micro-expressions of happiness, sadness, disgust, contempt, anger, surprise and fear are universal and don’t change, so they can be applied to all people.[29]

When observing the face it’s important to remember that it can do a lot of things that are independent of emotion, for example it can gesture. Facial gestures such as a wink are culturally specific and cannot be applied across all people. Additionally, people develop and use certain facial mannerisms that are designed to communicate information to another person, such as a raised eyebrow. The easiest way to distinguish between a facial gesture or mannerism and a micro-expression is that micro-expressions appear as a ‘flash’ or ‘twitch’ on the person’s face. Whereas, facial gestures and mannerisms are slower and more obvious as they are designed to communicate information to another person. Micro-expressions are involuntary flashes of emotions on the face.

The primary thing you are looking for when observing micro-expressions is a mismatch between the micro-expressed emotion and what is actually said. For example, a person may be asked a question, ‘I was told that Simon was sacked yesterday, what do you think of that?’ In response to this the person (for the briefest period), shows a slight smile (wrinkling around the eyes, not just the mouth) but responds, ‘That’s a real shame, he was a nice guy.’ The incongruity between the micro-expressed happiness and the statement expressing sadness or loss is obvious. The person’s micro-expression betrayed the fact that he was happy that Simon was no longer in the workplace.

If you’re like most people, you have never noticed micro-expressions before. You have to be fast to catch these tricky little expressions, but they do exist and with practice you’ll be surprised how regularly you start to notice them. They may appear to you as a twitch or just a flicker on the person’s face. When you do notice one, it’s important to then listen to what is said, and see if it conflicts with the micro-expressed emotion. If it doesn’t conflict, the person is stating what is truly felt. If it does conflict, the person is hiding true emotions from you.

EXAMPLE: Micro-expressions reveal how a person ‘really’ feels; it cannot be masked from you. A person may say to you, while smiling politely, ‘Oh that’s fine, I’m happy to meet John at Shakimra’s café,’ but as this is said, you notice the person’s upper lip is raised and lowered very quickly and the eyebrows flicker downwards. This is the micro-expression of disgust. While the person is deliberately showing you happiness/politeness, there is an inner emotion of disgust – about the meeting. The person is masking their feeling of disgust about a particular aspect of what has been proposed.

I don’t believe it is necessary to study the many muscle groups and technical aspects surrounding the facial movement for each emotion. These facial emotions are consistent across all races and cultures and you should be able to recognise them when you see them. However, I have provided some examples of the seven micro-expressions below. This will assist you with recognising them more instantaneously.

Because micro-expressions occur so very quickly and are easy to miss, each of the following examples recommends you focus on one particular area; the area is most likely to give you an indication of that emotion, rather than focusing on all areas for that micro-expression. This doesn’t mean the other areas can be discounted, but I suggest you focus your attention on the recommended area until you become more practised at instantaneously recognising the seven emotions.

NOTE: The primary thing you really need to practise is capturing the micro-expression itself. Then ask yourself, did that emotion conflict with what the person said?

Micro-expressions are involuntary flashes of emotion on the face. Look for mismatches between what is said and micro-expressions in detecting lies.

Happiness: The person smiles symmetrically. The cheeks are raised and there is real movement around the eyes. The skin between the eyebrow and upper eyelid is lowered slightly – but this is hard to spot, so focus your attention around the eyes. Was there movement? If the eyes aren’t really smiling, it’s a fake.

Sadness: The corners of the lips are pulled down, and the inner edges of the eyebrows are slightly raised. Focus your attention on the edges of the mouth – were they pulled downwards?

Anger: The lips become thinner and are pressed together or tense and opened slightly. The inner edges of the eyebrows are lowered toward the bridge of the nose causing a furrow between the eyebrows. The upper eyelids are raised, opening the eyes, and the person will glare; the eyes remain wide open. Focus your attention on either micro-expression – the mouth or the eyes.

Contempt: One side of the mouth is tightened and pulled back. This may just look like a twitch or a flicker. It may be combined with the person tilting their head backwards slightly. This is the only emotion that is displayed with an ‘asymmetrical’ response. Focus your attention on the mouth – if the movement wasn’t symmetrical, you just saw contempt.

Disgust: The upper lip remains full and is relaxed as it is raised symmetrically and may expose the teeth. The nose often becomes wrinkled. Focus attention on the upper lip – was it raised and then lowered very quickly – did it remain relaxed and full?

Fear: The eyebrows are raised, but they are flattened (less curved) as they are pushed together. The eyes widen. The mouth is widened horizontally thinning the lips. It will be tempting to focus on the eyes; however, the eyes can appear similar between fear and surprise. Focus on the mouth – was it widened horizontally towards the ears?

Surprise: The eyes widen and the eyebrows are lifted-but only briefly. The eyebrows remain curved. The mouth opens slightly as the jaw drops – the lips remain relaxed. People faking surprise will open their mouth too wide and leave their eyebrows raised for too long. Focus on the eyebrows – were they raised and lowered very quickly, – did they remain curved?

Confusion between Micro-expressions

Because of the speed of these tricky flashes of falsehood, some Micro-expressions appear similar until you become practised at observing them. I think the hardest to distinguish are anger from disgust and fear from surprise. Below, I have outlined the primary distinguishing features of these four micro-expressions to assist you with quickly picking the difference between them.

Anger vs Disgust: Anger can look like disgust as they both cause the brow to be crunched up and lowered. However, the most discernible differences can be seen around the eyes and the mouth.

Angry Eyes: Glaring and more open and eyebrows are lowered and drawn together.

Disgusted Eyes: The eyes are not as open (as angry eyes), and are often squinted – with eyebrows lowered, not drawn together.

Angry Mouth: The lips are pressed together and become thinner or are opened slightly with tension thinning the lips.

Disgusted Mouth: The upper lip is raised. Both lips remain full and more relaxed – you may see a glimpse of teeth.

Fear vs Surprise: Fear and Surprise can be confused with each other as they both cause the eyebrows to be raised and the mouth to open. However, there is a noticeable difference, particularly in respect to the eyebrows and the shape of the mouth.

Fear Eyebrows: Raised but straighten slightly (less curved) and are pulled together.

Surprised Eyebrows: Raised but remain curved.

Fear Mouth: Mouth opens slightly; the lips are pulled back laterally, widening the mouth.

Surprised Mouth: Mouth opens slightly, lips remain full and relaxed.

HANDY HINT: If a person is wearing sunglasses, had plastic surgery and just completed a Botox treatment, forget trying to read that person’s face – it will tell you a very confused story!

Scenario: You are at a work function, where numerous people are standing around eating and drinking. You suspect Jill, who is right-handed, was with another woman’s husband (Brett) on Friday night and not at the football match as she has stated (her alibi). You turn your ‘Liedar’ on.

You spend some time establishing a reliable baseline asking questions you know the answer to, and you know she knows the answer to e.g. ‘Jill, remember the office Christmas party last year, what was the name of the restaurant?’ During your Control Questions, you have observed the amount of eye contact she is having with you and her blink rate. You also observed her eyes flash upwards to your right as she recalled what the restaurant looked like. This demonstrates to you NLP (eye tracking) is observable with Jill; she is recalling an actual event – she’s telling the truth.

As she previously stated she was at the football match last Friday night, you lead into some Guilt Questions e.g. ‘Was it very crowded at the match? How many people do you think were home team supporters, based on the colours of the crowd?’ In response to this question you notice two quick blinks (combination of cognitive load and wanting to hide her eyes), you see her eyes look upwards to the left (creating a picture in her mind, not recalling an actual image) as she responds, ‘I think there were about an equal number of home supporters and away team supporters.’ Jill, then takes a long drink from her glass as she glances away from you (avoiding eye contact, hiding her mouth with the glass – she may start to have a dry mouth). You look in the direction she glanced toward and there is nothing of particular interest that would have distracted her. You then have a general conversation. (More Control Questions, during which you observe her behavioural baseline). Then you ask her, ‘Have you heard the rumour around the office that Brett is having an affair?’ As soon as you have said this you notice both Jill’s eyebrows raise then return very quickly but remain curved (just a flicker) and her mouth opens just slightly then closes. (Micro-expression of surprise). She responds smiling, ‘Well that’s fairly typical for our office, there’s always lots of rumours floating around-nothing surprises me in this place.’ (There is a total mismatch between her micro-expression of surprise and her statement). As she says this she picks up a napkin and wipes her mouth and nose briefly (hiding her mouth and rubbing her itchy nose). She changes the subject (deflection – discussed later in the book on page 112).

What does your ‘Liedar’ say about Jill?

A body of lies

Do liars move their bodies more or less when they lie? If you answered ‘more,‘ or ‘less‘ to this question, you answered it correctly. The reason for this is that due to the Sympathetic Nervous Response (fight or flight reaction) liars naturally want to move their bodies more, such as adjusting their seating position often, moving their legs and tapping their fingers. If you asked a person a question and they did all three of these, you would quickly come to the conclusion the person was lying. Liars know this. As highly conductive channels control these movements (ones that provide constant feedback to the brain) they provide a high degree of control to the liar. Therefore, the liar will attempt to control these movements as a counter-strategy (Cognitive Response) to disguise guilt. This can result in liars actually moving their body less than normal as they try to manipulate body movements, and hide the urge to move from you. Some liars will move more often and some will move less often. So how are we meant to determine deceit based on body movement?

The answer is actually quite simple. We just need to follow the five steps we covered previously in this section (Lie Detection Process).

Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie?

Ask Control Questions: To establish a behavioural baseline.

Guilt Questions: Ask Guilt Questions.

Indicators: Are there lying indicators in clue clusters?

Check Again: Re-examine.

As you are establishing a behavioural baseline, observe how often the person’s body moves as you are asking your Control Questions. When you are asking your Guilt Questions, try and identify if there is a sudden increase in body movement or, a sudden decrease in the amount of body movement; either can indicate deception. If movement increases, the Sympathetic Nervous Response (adrenaline) is causing the person to move more often. Decreased movement indicates the person is deliberately reducing body movement to disguise guilt.

If you don’t notice a difference in the amount of body movement between the Control Questions and the Guilt Questions, this may indicate the person is telling the truth. When observing the body to detect deceit, the best thing to look for is inconsistency in the body movements. The below section highlights some of the better body deceit clues to observe when looking for changes in activity between the Control Question and Guilt Question phases. Remember, if the person is lying there could be either an increase or decrease in movement of these body parts.

Arms and hands: Sweating palms are often referred to as a sign of a guilty person. In my opinion it’s clearly a sign of stress and may indicate a person is lying. However, a person may be stressed just because they are being challenged about something they said. Additionally, it’s impossible to observe when a person starts sweating, stops sweating and how profusely a person is sweating. For this reason, this indicator cannot be assessed within the five-step lie detection model (MAGIC) discussed earlier in the book. While it may be beneficial to observe that someone has sweaty palms and is therefore stressed, it is not a reliable deceit clue, as it can’t be assessed consistently. Therefore, I suggest there are more reliable deceit clues to observe. For example, the person may start to fidget or tap fingers. The fingers may even shake or tremble slightly; these indicators can be assessed within the model. If the deceiver is conscious of the fidgeting, counter-measures may include: hands being hidden in pockets, under a desk or clasped together in an attempt to disguise the fidgeting from you. The person may even hold on to a chair, pole or table when speaking to you to minimise arm movement. If you suspect this is occurring, attempt to see how tightly the person is gripping the object; you may notice the grip is tighter than what is normal.

Interestingly, liars rarely steeple their fingers. This is a natural body position often used by people to convey an assurance of strength and confidence. However, liars will sometimes steeple their fingers in front of their face in an effort to form a barrier. Liars often raise their hands to their face, primarily to cover their eyes or mouth or to surreptitiously touch their nose.

HANDY HINT: Remember it is a conflict between what the body says and what is said verbally that is a deception clue. For example, a person might be expressing how concerned they are about something you told them. As this occurs, you may notice a very small shrug of the shoulders which conflicts with what the person is saying – they don’t really care.

A person starting to fidget or tap fingers during your Guilt Questions may be lying. Also a total lack of movement can indicate deceit - look for movement inconsistency between Control and Guilt Questioning.

If the liar is conscious of fidgeting, they may try to hide this by placing their hands in their pockets, under a desk or clasping them together.

Legs and feet: I believe legs and feet are an underrated source of deception clues and are often missed. Liars are usually acutely aware of arm movement and will minimise it, but forget to reduce the movement in their legs, particularly if they think their legs are hidden out of sight, such as under a table or desk. Similar to the arms, liars may start to shake one or both legs slightly. To reduce this movement the liar may cross the legs or lock the ankles together. Liars may also use arms or hands to hold against the legs as a kind of brace to minimise movement. Also when seated, liars may spread their legs widely and press their thighs against the arms of the chair to hold them still. Sometimes this is combined with leaning backwards against the back of the chair in an effort to look relaxed, when the liar is anything but. Liars may even feign a yawn when they do this to look disinterested and unconcerned -another giveaway. Unless they were yawning during your Control Questions, if so perhaps you need some more interesting Control Questions!

HANDY HINT: The legs provide a great opportunity to observe increased movement. Pay particular attention to the feet and toes if visible, as these will often remain moving even when individuals have locked their ankles or braced their legs against a chair or with their arms. Look for small movements of the feet or legs as these are hard to control and will give liars away, as they concentrate on controlling arm movement and other more obvious deceit clues.

Liars may start to shake one or both legs slightly. To try and hide this, they may cross the legs or lock the angles.

Liars may use arms of chairs to hold against the legs as a kind of brace to minimise movement.

Liars may pretend to be relaxed – a closer inspection reveals the legs are braced against the chair, the fingers are clenched and the arm is locked into back of the chair.

Head: Often when a person lies there is a conflict between what is said and what the body demonstrates. When you take the time to observe the movement of the head in particular, and listen to what a deceiver is saying, it can become very evident there is a conflict. The person may be telling you they agree with what you are saying, while shaking the head ‘no’. Similarly, I have seen liars answer verbally ‘no’, while the head nods a positive ‘yes’. This conflict is a good deceit clue.

Posture: When stressed, more often than not liars will have a closed body posture. They want to take up as smaller space as possible. To do this, individuals cross their legs, fold their arms, hunch their shoulders and if seated, may even slide themselves down the back of the chair slightly. When you ask your Guilt Questions, liars may immediately turn their body slightly away from you or adjust their seating position, or pretend to be distracted and look in another direction. If the person wasn’t doing this before you asked the Guilt Questions, it’s a pretty good bet these movements are all deceit clues.

Usually an honest person will display an open and comfortable body posture. Conversely, liars will tend to be stiff, closed and lean back such as to distance themselves from the person asking the questions. Liars may even attempt to put an object between themselves and the person asking the question as a comfort or protection barrier. At an office meeting, a barrier could be created by simply raising a folder or some other paperwork to chest level; a good way to hide those telltale deception clues.

Conversely, sometimes in an effort to convey innocence, liars will lean forward (usually combined with increased eye contact) in an effort to convince the person asking the question of the truthfulness of their story, like a pushy salesman. When doing this they may also nod their head in rhythm with their speech and if very confident, may even point or tap their finger as they speak. If someone is doing this and trying very hard to convince you of something, check your ‘Liedar’; innocent people don’t try so hard, they expect exoneration.

HANDY HINT: The more a person tries to convince me of their innocence, the more I suspect them.

If you have the opportunity to do an Internet search and locate the video testimony of ex-President Bill Clinton in respect of the Monica Lewinsky matter observe how often he leans forward in an attempt to convince those present; a number of these gestures were accompanied by statements which were to say the least, questionable.

As another counter-measure, liars may deliberately adopt a relaxed posture, opening their arms, spreading their legs and leaning back. Of course, you will be assessing these movements against the movements you observed when establishing their behavioural baseline; an increase or decrease in activity indicates deception.

HANDY HINT: Liars feel more comfortable when you can’t see them. Ask yourself this question, if you had to tell a significant lie to your boss or some authoritative figure (i.e. the police), would you prefer to do it on the phone or face-to-face?

The reason we feel more comfortable is that it’s easier for us to hide deception clues that may be leaked via our body movements to the other person. With this in mind, plan to ask your questions when the person is standing in plain view, with freedom to move, not seated at a desk where they can either anchor themselves to an object (restricting guilty movement) or hide deception clues under a desk or table.

Liars will most likely have a closed body posture to take up as little space as possible. They may cross their legs, fold their arms, hunch their shoulders, and if sitting, even slide themselves down the back of the chair slightly.

When you ask your Guilt Questions, liars may immediately turn their body slightly away from you, or adjust their seating position, or pretend to be distracted and look another direction.

Liars tend to be stiff, closed and lean back to distance themselves from the person asking the questions, or even put a barrier or object in front of their body.

Open and relaxed body posture.

Closed body posture – note the hands, arms and legs are braced to stop movement.

Speaking with forked tongue

As we discussed earlier in the section, The Nature of Lie Detection: how good are we – naturally?, Albert Mehrabian’s research found that 55 per cent of communication was non-verbal (how the body moves); 38 per cent was vocal (how things are said) and only 7 per cent was purely verbal (what was said).[30] So far, with good reason we have focused most of our attention on non-verbal signs of lying. In my opinion, the assessment of non-verbal signs is easier to observe and remember, particularly if you are just commencing to develop your lie detection skills. However, given that 45 per cent of our communication is what and how words are used, it’s worth spending some time looking at deception clues through speech.

Text-bridging: Clever liars prefer to conceal their lies within the truth rather than invent an entire story. One way they do this is by a process called text-bridging. Text-bridging is a process where the person simply ‘glosses over’ parts of a story which, if told in more detail would expose a lie. Below is a transcript example of text-bridging. See if you can identify the area of the story the person doesn’t want to discuss in detail and is attempting to conceal.

Question: ‘Tell me in detail what you did this morning.‘

Answer: ‘Well, I woke up and had a shower, got dressed, poured myself a coffee and got the morning paper from the front garden. After I read the paper in the kitchen, I grabbed my car keys and left the house. I saw my neighbour John Dobbs was leaving for work at the same time; we both took the River motorway into the city. The traffic was pretty bad but I still made good time to the city. However, when I got out of the lift at work, I went to my desk, put my stuff down, turned on my laptop and started going through some paperwork.‘

When you read through the answer, you’ll notice there is a moderate amount of detail that appears consistently through the account given, except for one glaring hole – the story went from arriving in the city to getting out of the lift. Where did the person park the car? Considering the amount of detail given as the person went through the morning’s activities, it would be reasonable to expect they would mention where the car was parked, what they did in the car park and perhaps what they saw in the car park. However, this has been glossed over in an attempt to conceal an event.

There are some classic text-bridging phrases that you can look for that deceivers commonly use in conversation, such as ‘the next thing I knew…’, ‘shortly thereafter…’, ‘coincidentally…’, ‘however…’ and ‘then…’.

If you hear any of these in a conversation it may be the start of a text-bridge being built – over guilty waters. By listening to the amount of detail in an answer, text-bridging will become obvious to you when they suddenly jump from one part of the story to another.

One thing to keep in mind though is that a person may appear to be text-bridging when glossing over a certain part of the story, because the person simply can’t be bothered telling you; thinks you may not be interested in the details about that part of the story or, it’s not relevant to the point being made. So, if a person is telling you a story, the apparent text-bridging may not necessarily be as a result of lying, the person may simply be protecting you from boring details. Of course if the person text-bridges more than once around a particular subject an area, this should start your ‘Liedar’ beeping.

Deflection: Deflection is as the name infers a way to deflect someone’s attention on to something else to avoid being questioned or to avoid answering a question. Liars will sometimes do this and attempt to do it subtly, usually as part of an overly elaborate answer to a question. Coincidentally politicians are very good at this technique! The next time you see a politician being grilled by a television reporter about something for which they are clearly guilty or accountable, listen for the deflection as they don’t answer the question and attempt to focus the attention on another person, or political party. An example of deflection:

Question: ‘Why haven’t you done more about the traffic congestion by funding more roads for example?’

Answer: ‘The problem with traffic congestion is that it is a national matter, in fact overseas it’s continuously a problem and with more cars on the road there are environmental issues to consider. We have put a lot of money into environmental research in an effort to protect the environment and the future for our children.’

The slippery politician simply didn’t answer the question and deflected the conversation into a subject area that she/he felt she/he was well protected. If every time you get close to talking about a suspicious activity and you find the subject has been changed, the person is deflecting to avoid talking about the suspicious activity. ‘Liedar’ on.

People use deflection techniques and text bridging as a form of protection in regular conversation. Now you know how to identify these tactics, it can be fun when you hear someone do this as part of a normal conversation, because you have identified there is something the person doesn’t want to tell you. While that person may not be lying to you, there is definitely something being hidden. If you are so inclined, you can then menacingly ask questions about the area over which the person has deflected or text-bridged. This is usually met by the person dismissing your question as not important. Yep, something is being hidden.

Even children will adopt this strategy to avoid telling the whole truth. Example:

Child: ‘Dad, I was in the lounge room playing my PlayStation with Tracy. I was about to get my highest score, the next thing I knew Tracy started hitting me.’ (‘The next thing I knew.’ Text-bridging over the incident where Ken took the PlayStation control from Tracy when it was her turn).

Father: ‘Did you do something to make her angry?’

Child: ‘We were just playing, anyway Tracey got into trouble with her teacher at school today.’ (Deflection to a new area, away from the incident for which the child is guilty).

Contractions and over-emphasis: Generally, when people lie they avoid using word contractions, such as ‘I don’t’, ‘I wasn’t’ and ‘I didn’t’. A liar will say, ‘I do not’, ‘I was not’ and ‘I did not’. A deceiver may say, ‘I do not remember’ as opposed to ‘I don’t remember’ as they are attempting to appear more convincing and very definite in their answer.

Similarly, deceivers sometimes tend to over-emphasise their answers with phrases such as, ‘I would not lie’, ‘I have never lied’ or ‘I was taught never to lie’. Additionally, if you hear one of the phrases, ‘I swear on my mother’s life’, ‘to be honest’, ‘to be perfectly frank’, ‘to be perfectly truthful’, turn your ‘Liedar’ on, as there is most likely a stream of lies coming your way!

A classic example of over-emphasis by Bill Clinton, 26 January 1998:

‘Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.’[31]

Another way liars over-emphasise their story is by providing too much detail in their answers – more than would be expected. They do this to appear more convincing. Like the pushy car salesman who bombards you with car and money details and reasons why you should buy the car; the liar is bombarding you with details in an effort to convince you of their innocence. Liars may also do this because they feel if they give a vague answer it may be a sign of guilt. So a very detailed answer is simply a counter-strategy.

Regardless of the reason why, if you get an overly-elaborate and detailed answer to a question, pursue that area some more. A tactic that works very well with individuals who provide very detailed and elaborate answers is to use the silent treatment. Ask another question and don’t give any verbal or behavioural signs of acknowledgement that you believe or disbelieve them. This will place their head in a psychological vice, as they desperately want feedback from you that you are convinced of their innocence. By not providing them any feedback and remaining silent they will continue to talk in detail, tightening the vice on their own head, as the answer contains more lies and becomes longer and longer. Sometimes the answers can verge on ridiculous irrational accounts that have nothing to do with the original question. Sometimes, deceivers will reach the point where they realise what they have said is totally ridiculous. In a change of tact and in an effort to try and convince you, they may decide to admit that they have been less than truthful – but are now honest e.g. ‘Okay, to be perfectly honest with you…’ and off they go again: more lies, and you’re saying nothing.

HANDY HINT: Liars will often either ask you to repeat the question or they will repeat your question verbally, aloud or sometimes under their breath. This is to give them more thinking time to fabricate a response. When was the last time you were having a normal conversation with a person and you were asked to repeat the question or the person repeated your question in full? This very rarely occurs in normal circumstances. If this does occur, the person is stalling and using the time to formulate a response. The very sneaky liar will clear the throat before responding, again to create time to manufacture falsehoods.

Speech pattern: When a person is speaking the truth there is a regular pattern of speech, it flows with a certain rhythm and tone, regardless of what the topic is. Often liars’ speech will speed up and slow down during the course of a conversation. Additionally, the tone of their voice may alter between when they are telling the truth and when they are not. Usually, the voice pitch increases as a result of stress when a person lies.

Liars’ speech slows down as the mind is loaded up (cognitive load), thinking about what lies have been told previously and how to best lie on this occasion. Conversely, speech will then speed up as the liar talks about matters the mind does not need to manufacture, the truth.

If an individual’s speech rapidly increases, this can also be a result of them delivering a rehearsed lie, one that has been practised or told on many occasions. How do you distinguish between all these? You are seeking to observe a difference in the speech pattern between the answers to the Control Questions and the Guilt Questions. If the person’s speech speeds up or slows down when answering the Guilt Questions, start looking for other signs of deceit.

HANDY HINT: Look for a very quick response in the form of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, followed by a pause then the qualification of the answer. This is because the liar wants a quick response to the question to avoid appearing guilty, so the answer is delivered quickly, but then the person needs time to fabricate the story.

In addition to changes in their speech pattern, liars tend to mispronounce words more regularly than truthful people. If they start to stutter, pause or mispronounce words in response to your Guilt Questions, this is a fair indication the person is lying.

When challenged verbally a truthful person will usually be forthcoming with information and be helpful. Truth tellers are confident and expect to be exonerated, so the verbal answers are spontaneous and the speech pattern is fluid and follows a rhythm. Often an innocent person will display some form of resentment towards towards whoever is responsible; less so toward the person accusing them. When a deceitful person is challenged the person is usually less helpful and the tone of the voice may increase as the speech pattern speeds and slows throughout the conversation. They may also become defensive.

Some people will steeple their fingers in front of their face to form an additional barrier – touching their nose and mouth – as Bill Clinton did on several occasions during his Grand Jury testimony. Copyright C-SPAN

Bill Clinton leaning forward giving testimony, he is selling his story to the listener. Politicians, hard-sell salespeople (and pushy people!), do this when ‘selling’ what they are saying – trying to convince others; sometimes when telling the truth, other times when lying. Copyright C-SPAN

Over-emphasis – ‘I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.‘ Copyright C-SPAN

Summary of main points

The below dot points highlight some of the more significant information covered in this Part.

Follow the five-step MAGIC Lie Detection Model:

Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie?

Ask Control Questions: To establish a behavioural baseline. (Ask Control Questions and observe normal behaviour and speech patterns).

Guilt Questions: Ask Guilt Questions. (Provide the opportunity to lie, or tell the truth).

Indicators: Are there lying indicators in clusters? (Look for inconsistency in behaviour and speech patterns, a cluster of lying signs in close succession – in response to your Guilt Questions).

Check Again: Re-examine. (Ask Control Questions again and then revisit Guilt Questions, if the Clue Cluster returns, the person is being deceitful).

The three key areas of the eyes to focus on are: eye contact, blink rate and eye movement.

When you ask a question, an individual’s eyes should:

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – right (your right), if remembering something that actually happened. This indicates to you the person has actually experienced what is being told to you; or,

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – left (your left), if creating something in the mind; something not seen or heard before. This indicates to you the person has not seen or heard what is being told to you.

• The above is for a right-orientated person (right-handed), a left-orientated person (left-handed) will be the opposite.

• You can identify the orientation of a person during your Control Questioning by simply asking about events the person has actually experienced.

• Sometimes a person will look straight ahead with little or no eye movement with the eyes appearing to be unfocused. This is also a sign that the person is recalling an actual event.

• This technique will not work on all people – use it in addition to other lying signs before determining if a person is lying.

Liars like to cover their mouth, and some will touch their nose either as a method of momentarily covering their mouth with their hand or because the tissues within their nose have become engorged with blood, causing an itching sensation.

A genuine smile affects the muscles around the eyes and takes some time to form and fade. A fake smile is created primarily by the lower half of the face only, and appears and disappears too quickly.

Micro-expressions are involuntary and very fast flashes of emotions on the face. They may appear as a twitch. Regardless of culture, race or upbringing, the micro-expressions of happiness, sadness, disgust, contempt, anger, surprise and fear are universal and don’t change, so they can be applied to all people

Micro-expressions are so instantaneous the person expressing them has no control over them. Micro-expressions display the true inner-emotion of a person before they have time to hide it. Look for a conflict between the micro-expressed emotion and the statement made by the person.

Liars will use counter-measures in an attempt to trick you. For example they may increase the amount of eye contact or reduce the amount of body movement when lying. If this is inconsistent with their behaviour when you establish the behavioural baseline, it’s a counter-measure and they are being deceitful.

Liars avoid contractions such as, ‘I don’t’, ‘I wasn’t’ and ‘I didn’t’ and will use, ‘I do not’, ‘I was not’ and ‘I did not’, more often.

Some liars provide over-elaborate details in their answer or are pushy, like a salesman, in trying to convince you of their innocence.

Look for inconsistencies in speech pattern and tone. Some classic text-bridging phrases that deceivers commonly use in conversation include: ‘the next thing I knew…’; ‘shortly thereafter…’; ‘ coincidentally…’; ‘however…’; and ‘then…’.

GO FOR IT!

Now you have read this entire book, if you haven’t already, it’s time to start practising. Let the fun begin! The more you practise what is taught in this book the more accurate you will become.

A good place to start testing your skills is with children as they haven’t yet learned to hide their lies very well and their lying signs are obvious. I also encourage you to practise with friends and family as they can provide you feedback on when they lied. You can learn a great deal from this.

The tactics taught in this book are not magic tricks, nor are they an exact science. Regardless of your age, gender, language or cultural background, with practice you will most definitely improve your accuracy.

Don’t be discouraged if your results are not accurate to start with – this is quite often the case. Remember you are most likely starting from a 45-50 per cent accuracy rate, but are aiming for a 70–80 per cent accuracy rate. Even as an accomplished Human Lie Detector, you will miss some lies. I can assure you though, if you correctly apply the information in this book it will set you on the path to becoming an effective Human Lie Detector – and that’s the truth!

Part Three

Easy reference section

THE NATURE OF LYING: SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Lying is a normal part of human communication and should not always be considered a bad thing to do.

People lie regularly, about once every 10 minutes during conversation.

Sometimes lying is necessary to protect a person’s feelings and to assist with everyday human interaction. On other occasions lying can be very detrimental to people and their relationships.

Other-Focused Lies are directed at another person and are usually told with the good intention of the deceiver. They are sometimes called white lies or good-will lies.

Self-Focused Lies may be directed at any person, but are told for the purpose of benefitting or protecting the person telling the lie. While not always the case, this category of lie can be sinister and damaging.

THE NATURE OF LIE DETECTION: SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Naturally, we are far better at telling lies than detecting them. Without specific training most people, including those from professions where detecting lies is crucial, achieve a lie detection rate of about 50 per cent.

With specific knowledge (provided by this book) and practice (provided by you), people may achieve a lie detection rate of 80 per cent.

The more you use your ‘Liedar’ the more accurate your lie detection skills will become. However, you don’t want it on constantly – knowing when to turn it ‘on’ will make you more focused when you do use these skills.

There is a special category of Human Lie Detector (referred to as Lie Wizards) that has a natural talent in accurate lie detection without specific training, achieving starting percentages of 80 per cent or better.

Most people believe that they can tell if their partner, child or close friend lies to them. This is usually not the case, due to two primary factors; over-confidence (they know the person well and will therefore be able to see the telltale signs) and closeness (the natural default position for humans is to believe the people they are emotionally close to). These two factors lead to a loss of objectivity preventing a person in a close relationship from seeing otherwise obvious signs.

Studies have demonstrated that 55 per cent of communication is non-verbal (how the body moves/reacts); 38 per cent is vocal (how things are said) and only 7 per cent is purely verbal (what was said). While what is said cannot be totally discounted in lie detection, how things are said and how a person’s body moves/ reacts while communicating is far more important.

Relying solely on what is said is inherently unreliable. Accurate lie detectors rely on a combination of what they’re told and what they observe.

THE LYING RESPONSE: SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Broadly speaking there are three responsive phases after a lie is told:

Phase One: Emotional Response: Recognition by the liar of the falsehood told, which leads to feelings of guilt, fear, stress and on occasion excitement. How great an impact this will have on the person and their behaviour is predominantly determined by the magnitude of the consequences of being caught out. For example, a small lie will only have a small amount of emotion attached to it. A major deception, such as infidelity, crime or lying to secure a business contract or employment, will usually result in a noticeable increase in these emotions, making them easier to detect.

Phase Two: Sympathetic Nervous Response: The impact of guilt, fear, stress or excitement on the liar, which results in ‘deceit clues’, such as finger tapping, fidgeting, talking too quickly, avoiding eye contact and rapid eye movement.

Phase Three: Cognitive Response: A counter-measure attempt by the liar to cover up the ‘deceit clues’. This is more easily done using highly conductive channels (areas of the body over which the liar easily controls i.e. hands and eye contact). These areas shouldn’t be discounted. However, concentrating on areas with less control such as pupil size, lower body movements and micro-expressions will be more productive.

The lying response sequence: If the Emotional Response is fear (phase one) and this causes the liar to tap their foot (phase two), the person will attempt to hide their leg movement (under a table or bracing the legs), to disguise guilt (phase three).

Mentally, we only have $100. Consider that humans have $100 worth of brain capacity at any particular time. Liars need to spend this money carefully to avoid being detected. If they invest too much in hiding deceit clues revealed through body movement, their explanation will not make logical sense. Conversely, if the answer makes sense, they may not have invested enough in hiding guilty body movement. If you ask for further clarification you may be able to cause mental bankruptcy, revealing an array of obvious deceit clues.

LIE DETECTION PROCESS – IT’S MAGIC: SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

The MAGIC Lie Detection Model is an easy-to-remember process that may be applied to all situations. You may find it useful to use this summary to refresh your memory. If you would like more detailed information, I suggest you read the entire section titled ‘Lie Detection Process – it’s MAGIC!’

Motivation: Does the person have a motivation to lie. Motivations include: to protect from embarrassment; to make a positive impression; to gain an advantage; and to avoid punishment. You’ll be more accurate if you remain objective, so don’t assume they are lying – be aware that the person may have the motivation to lie, but is actually telling the truth.

Ask Control Questions, to establish a baseline: When you initially turn on your ‘Liedar’, observe the verbal and non-verbal responses to Control Questions – ones the person will answer truthfully. This will give you a behavioural baseline. Take your time doing this, as it will create a reliable platform to then detect changes in behaviour if the person lies.

Guilt Questions: To identify a liar you need to first provide the opportunity to lie. For this to occur, you must ask a Guilt Question or two – subtly. This is best done as part of a normal conversation as it denies the opportunity for the person to hide deceit clues from you.

Indicators: Are there lying indicators that stand out to you, from the baseline behaviour you observed when asking the Control Questions? Did they occur in a clue cluster and in quick succession? When this occurs in response to a guilt question, your ‘Liedar’ should lock on. Some deceit clues are listed at the end of this section.

Check Again: Re-examine. To do this, repeat stages M.A.G.I. (above) and validate your observations of the clue cluster. If you observe a similar clue cluster to a similar Guilt Question, it’s likely you’ve caught yourself a liar.

Some Deceit Clues: Finger, hand, leg, foot movement, or absence of movement; speech pattern changes, increased mispronunciation, throat clearing, exaggerated swallowing or stuttering; inconsistent eye movement (fabricating not recalling); less eye contact or vastly increased eye contact; itchy nose; closed body posture, leaning back or placing arms across the body to create a barrier; hands in front of mouth or eyes; extended blink followed by a hand to the face; contradictions between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is gestured’ (nodding ‘yes’ but saying ‘no’); feigning tiredness, e.g. fake yawning; increased embellishment and overly detailed answers; and conflicting micro-expressions.

LYING SIGNS: SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Follow the five-step MAGIC Lie Detection Model.

The three key areas of the eyes to focus on are: eye contact, blink rate and eye movement.

When you ask a question, an individual’s eyes should:

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – right (your right), if remembering something that actually happened. This indicates to you the person has actually experienced what is being told to you; or,

• Move either horizontally or diagonally upwards – left (your left), if creating something in the mind; something not seen or heard before. This indicates to you the person has not seen or heard what is being told to you.

• The above is for a right-orientated person (right-handed), a left-orientated person (left-handed) will be the opposite.

• You can identify the orientation of a person during your Control Questioning by simply asking about events the person has actually experienced.

• Sometimes a person will look straight ahead with little or no eye movement with the eyes appearing to be unfocused. This is also a sign that the person is recalling an actual event.

• This technique will not work on all people – use it in addition to other lying signs before determining if a person is lying.

Liars like to cover their mouth, and some will touch their nose either as a method of momentarily covering their mouth with their hand or because the tissues within their nose have become engorged with blood, causing an itching sensation.

A genuine smile affects the muscles around the eyes and takes some time to form and fade. A fake smile is created primarily by the lower half of the face only, and appears and disappears too quickly.

Micro-expressions are involuntary and very fast flashes of emotions on the face. They may appear as a twitch. Regardless of culture, race or upbringing, the micro-expressions of happiness, sadness, disgust, contempt, anger, surprise and fear are universal and don’t change, so they can be applied to all people

Micro-expressions are so instantaneous the person expressing them has no control over them. Micro-expressions display the true inner-emotion of a person before they have time to hide it. Look for a conflict between the micro-expressed emotion and the statement made by the person.

Liars will use counter-measures in an attempt to trick you. For example they may increase the amount of eye contact or reduce the amount of body movement when lying. If this is inconsistent with their behaviour when you establish the behavioural baseline, it’s a counter-measure and they are being deceitful.

Liars avoid contractions such as, ‘I don’t’, ‘I wasn’t’ and ‘I didn’t’ and will use, ‘I do not’, ‘I was not’ and ‘I did not’, more often.

Some liars provide over-elaborate details in their answer or are pushy, like a salesman, in trying to convince you of their innocence.

Look for inconsistencies in speech pattern and tone. Some classic text-bridging phrases that deceivers commonly use in conversation include: ‘the next thing I knew…’; ‘shortly thereafter…’; ‘ coincidentally…’; ‘however…’; and ‘then…’.

LYING SIGNS: EASY REFERENCE LIST

As mentioned throughout this book, lying signs observed during the Guilt Questions need to be compared against the same signs and behaviours demonstrated during the Control Questions. What you are looking for is an inconsistency between the two. Some lying signs will increase, indicating a person is lying, and some will decrease as the person attempts to disguise their guilt. For example, one liar will increase their movements as they are asked questions, another will sit rigid like a statue in attempt to hide their guilt. Inconsistency is the key. Look for:

• Finger, hand, leg, foot movement, or unnatural absence of movement.

• Speech pattern changes – changing the tense between or within sentences.

• Increased mispronunciation.

• Speech doesn’t flow smoothly and naturally.

• Repeating the question – cognitive overload – liar needs more time to fabricate.

• Inconsistent eye movement, fabricating not recalling.

• Less or increased eye contact.

• Blinking slows or increases.

• Dry lips.

• Less colour in lips.

• Itchy nose – due to increased blood flow to erectile tissues.

• Leaning back to create barrier.

• Hands, arms, legs crossed.

• Body movements are jerky – not relaxed and natural.

• Pursed lips.

• Hands in front of mouth or eyes.

• Hand on chin, finger reaching up to edge of the mouth.

• No hand-steepling, or hand-steepling in front of the face.

• Throat clearing.

• Deep swallowing.

• Stuttering.

• Pupils dilate.

• Contradictions between what is said and what is gestured.

• Feigning tiredness, e.g. fake yawning.

• Insincere smiling.

• Short stepped breathing, faster breathing.

• Micro-expression conflicts with what is said (i.e. liar says, ‘Happy to see you’, but micro-expression shows ‘disgust’).

• Extended blink, followed by hand to face.

• Withdrawn closed body posture, or feigned very open body posture.

• Text-bridging in sentence construction.

• Lack of speech contractions.

• Overly elaborate and detailed answer.

LYING SIGNS: IMAGE REFERENCE GUIDE

MICRO-EXPRESSIONS: IMAGE REFERENCE GUIDE

HANDY HINTS – PARENTS AND TEACHERS

Some may feel that questioning children using these methods is not a fair activity; that it invades their privacy. However, I believe that in the correct circumstances knowing the truth is sometimes essential for a child’s welfare and forms part of proper parenting and teaching. I don’t advocate always testing children for the truth, just when it really matters. Remember to always apply the MAGIC model. Here are some helpful hints where children are concerned:

Question commensurate to the child’s age: How intensely you go about questioning a child should be strictly governed by the age of the child. For example, your questioning may be quite vigorous with a 17-year-old, but gentle with an eight-year-old. Also, remember that young children around five years of age may not yet have developed the capacity to lie and may not be lying; they may be simply just telling you about their imagination. When she was four, one of my daughters told me ‘honestly’ that a spider broke our sprinkler. Factually it was a lie, but she truly she believed what she had said. You can’t chastise a child for this, so be careful not to punish a genuine imagination. Additionally, if you overly press a child during questioning, they’ll admit to most things regardless of any guilt, or conversely, just tell you what they think you want to hear. This is exacerbated where there is an increased power differential in the relationship, as would be the case where a school principal questions a child, compared to a young student teacher questioning the same child. Accurate lie detection is about identifying the truth; not coercing an innocent. It’s more accurate and more fair to question carefully and appropriately to the child’s age.

Beware of over-confidence and remain objective: For parents, questioning your own children is always a tricky endeavour, as we are naturally handicapped by closeness and confidence, as discussed earlier in the book. Due to how much you love the little terror and your natural presumption of knowledge, you may miss deceit clues. Deciding they are lying or telling the truth before making a proper assessment (using MAGIC) will only lead to an inaccurate conclusion. In the case of teachers, it’s equally important not to base your lie detection upon a student’s history. A student that has lied often in the past may not be doing so on all occasions. Conversely, the ideal ‘butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth’ student will, on occasion, lie. It’s not easy to remain impartial, particularly if you already suspect a child of some misbehaviour or, presume a child is innocent. To increase your accuracy on each occasion, the approach needs to be judicious and one where you question carefully and impartially applying the MAGIC model.

The body of a child yells: For the tricky child customer, I recommend asking your questions while the child is standing. The reason for this is that children have less muscular control in the face and body than that of adults. So when using the MAGIC model and then changing from Control Questions to Guilt Questions, the guilty child will move incongruently with previous movements when answering truthfully. Children’s movements are vastly exaggerated in these circumstances, so you can use that to your advantage.

Pros and cons of bluffing: Some parents and teachers may try to bluff children that they can always tell when they are lying. This method works quite effectively, until you get it wrong, then they know you can’t and you simply lose credibility and respect. Remember, that without training, lie detection accuracy is around 50 per cent, and that with training and knowledge, the highest accuracy most could expect to achieve is about 80 per cent. The MAGIC model is not infallible, so if you catch a child lying don’t claim that you can do it every time, because you can’t (I can’t either) – you can let them think it though. Implicit bluffing is more effective and has a longer effective time range.

EXAMPLE: I distinctly remember breaking my younger brother’s bike when I was about seven, and thought no one knew – but Dad did, and I got into trouble fair and square. ‘How did you know?’ I asked (not knowing the neighbour had told him), and all he said was, ‘Sometimes, Dads know these things.’ From that, I remember thinking that Dad could read my mind, so in future I very rarely told him lies. If Dad had told me that he always knew, eventually he would have been wrong and I would have discovered his lie, and this discovery would have freed me up to lie again at will. However, not knowing when he knew and when he didn’t was a somewhat tortuous way of making me more truthful. I suggest that you apply a similar strategy with your children or students. If you catch the child out lying, ‘Mums sometimes know these types of things.’ is far better than, ‘I can always tell when you lie’ or ‘a little bird told me’. That will just make them hate birds!

Learn from their lying: For parents, one of the best ways to learn your child’s deceit clues is to be patient and study their behaviour. Don’t wait until there is a critical issue at hand and then try to use your skills – this won’t be reliable. My advice is to wait until there is an opportunity to learn something about your child’s misbehaviour through another means, other than MAGIC. It must be reliable information, the child is confident you don’t know. For example, if a school parent or teacher informs you that your pride and joy was caught cheating on a test at school, use that accurate information and then apply the MAGIC model. When you ask the Guilt Questions, observe the child’s deceit clues – they will definitely be there. Store these in your mind for future reference. Don’t reveal that you know she/he lied. If the child believes they got away with it on that occasion, they’ll naturally revert to the same method next time. When there is a critical issue, you can again apply MAGIC, and see if the same or similar signs manifest. This will be more reliable.

A final note: Parents, remember lie detection of your own child, particularly when they are older, is one of the hardest things to get correct. Getting it wrong can be very hurtful, so please tread carefully. Teachers, having so many children to deal with makes your task particularly hard; you simply cannot and should not try to learn all of your students’ deceit clues. Remember, a student’s antecedence (positive or negative) is the greatest threat to your accuracy, so only turn your ‘Liedar’ on when you really need to, and approach each situation impartially.

Most obvious deceit clues from children:

Eyes: Observe the eyes, these will flit around the room and look everywhere except where your eyes are; this is more obvious in younger children. Also observe the eye movement, is the child actually recalling something or searching the mind for ideas to invent answers? (See the section in the book on Eye Movements on page 62.)

Fidgeting or Playing with an Object: This is more prominent in children over seven years of age and is a natural distraction tool. Children do this so they don’t have to look at you; it’s as if they are too busy. It’s a step up in sophistication from younger children who simply look about the room anywhere except where the parent is.

Hand to Mouth: The younger the child the more obvious this will be. A young child may place the entire hand over the mouth – trying to cover where the lie came from. Older children will be more subtle, but still raise their hand to the face or may attempt to hide their face from you momentarily by getting a glass of water (averting your gaze, while doing so) and then using the glass to hide their mouth as they drink.

Speech Pattern: This is more prominent in younger children – their speech will slow right down while they think of something to fabricate (due to an increase in cognitive load), and then speed up as they deliver the fabricated reply (to make up for the ‘guilty’ time delay). Teenagers also do this, but more subtly. Teenagers will also use verbal distraction, such as changing the subject abruptly, asking you a question without answering yours or pointing out something totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. An overly detailed or elaborate answer is a dead set deceit giveaway, if the teenager is usually very brief in their truthful responses.

Use the Silent Treatment: If the child answers you, and you’re not sure if it is the truth or not, pause – wait, look and hold your eyes on them. Don’t show any expression, this is most important as the guilty child will be either be looking at other things constantly, not game to look at you or, if they are older, glance briefly at you to see if the lie was believed. In both cases, the child will be desperate for information from you on whether you were deceived or not. No answer and no expression increases pressure on the guilty mind. The child will most likely say, ‘What?’ seeking any sort of feedback they can get, or may rephrase the answer, most likely making it more detailed and more convincing. Guilty, your Honour!

HANDY HINTS – RECRUITMENT INTERVIEWING AND NEGOTIATION

Recruitment interviewing and negotiation are subjects in their own right that have numerous elements and factors to consider to be conducted successfully. While there are no specific deceit clues that only occur during interviews and negotiation, this Handy Hints page deals with some techniques that assist in identifying deceit occurring in these situations. While the job applicant and the negotiator may come to the table from differing perspectives and also have a different ‘power’ relationship with you; – the former usually the lesser of the two – there are certain tactics applicable to both that may assist you in identifying deceit. For this reason I’ve included them in this Handy Hints page. Remember to always apply the MAGIC model.

Nervous is Normal: In the book we have discussed several deceit clues, some of which become more prevalent when a person is nervous, such as dry lips, closed body posture and deep swallowing. Under normal circumstances when these types of clues are revealed during the Guilt Questioning phase, they indicate deceit. The situation of the negotiator and the interviewee is slightly different, as both may commence their interaction with you already in a nervous state and then relax as the process continues. As such, if you apply the MAGIC model from the outset, your Control Questions may be asked of a nervous person and you will observe this baseline behaviour as being truthful. By the time you move to asking your Guilt Questions, the person may feel more comfortable in the environment and appear to be answering truthfully, when in fact they are not. The best way to counteract this is to take your time; acknowledge the person may be nervous, and allow them some time to settle. There is plenty of time during negotiations and interviews to identify deceit, but to do so more accurately, it is critical to establish a reliable and truthful baseline. To help them settle – ask simple questions or discuss matters off the topic you intend to ask – talk about the weather, traffic, or coffee. Once the person has settled, commence your Control Questions and establish a reliable baseline from which you may then identify deceit clues during the Guilt Questioning.

Setting the Environment: During interviews and negotiations, there are some environmental factors that you can utilise to your advantage that will assist you in identifying deceit. You may recall from earlier in the book, that due to the Sympathetic Nervous Response (the ‘fight or flight’ reaction) liars naturally want to move their bodies more, such as adjusting their seating position often, moving their legs and tapping their fingers. Therefore, liars will attempt to control or hide these movements as a counter-strategy (Cognitive Response) to disguise guilt. This being the case, you can ‘counter this counter-strategy’ by making it harder to hide guilty movements. The following are some simple and effective measures that make it more difficult to hide guilty movements: arranging for the other party to sit on a swivel chair; having their chair positioned slightly lower than yours; arranging the office so you can observe the person’s lower body movements (remembering that less conductive channels are harder for the liar to control – feet and toes fall into this category); and having items on the desk they may easily choose to pick up, such as a pen or eraser. All of these measures are aimed at providing the person with as much freedom of movement as possible. This way when you are asking your Guilt Questions, such as, ‘Were you sacked from your last job?’ or ‘Is that the highest offer your company can make?’ and the person lies – the guilty movements will be amplified, making them easier for you to spot.

Text-bridging and distraction: As mentioned earlier in the book, text-bridging is a process where a person simply ‘glosses over’ parts of a story which, if told in more detail, would expose a lie. Sometimes during interviews and negotiations, Text-bridging is followed directly by a distraction aimed at diverting a person’s attention away from the area that has been avoided by the deceiver. When an interviewee or negotiator does this, it indicates a weakness and an area you may wish to explore more fully, as something is being hidden from you. It may be a gap in the person’s employment history, or in the case of a negotiator it may indicate a vulnerability in their capacity to deliver a certain outcome or timeframe.

An Example: Applicant for Magee’s Gym.

Interviewer: ‘Could you please outline your recent work experience?’

Interviewee: ‘I worked for 13 months at Woodgate’s Gym and Fitness Centre, where I ran all the aerobic classes and circuit training for three days of the week and on the other days, I assisted with administration; so I have good experience in both areas of the business. After they closed the gym, I worked at Ashby’s Gym for a while and now I’m really keen to get started at Magee’s Gym, in any area you need – administration, instruction, personal training – I’m a very motivated person.’

Can you identify the area this person doesn’t want examined – where has the person text-bridged and is there a subtle distraction? When you read the answer, you notice there is a high level of detail around the applicant’s time at Woodgate’s Gym and Fitness Centre, then the information becomes vague around Ashby’s Gym (text-bridge), then the level of detail increases again (the distraction) when the applicant speaks of the new job. I would advise the interviewer to ask more questions about Ashby’s Gym, or perhaps phone them for a reference.

A similar example can occur during a negotiation process, where the other party glosses over a particular aspect and/or attempts to distract you from some aspect of the deal, so be alert to these techniques – they’re a warning sign for you. Text-bridging and distraction alone don’t indicate deceit, but they do identify areas that you should increase your focus upon.

Friendly, Friendly, Hard technique: Asking the right questions during interviews and negotiations is one critical factor towards achieving a successful outcome. To assist in identifying deceit during these processes, a good technique is to ask a question that unexpectedly puts the other person on the spot. When this occurs, truthful people recover quickly; liars on the other hand will have that ‘deer caught in the headlights’ look and leak deceit clues as they stumble with a verbal response – due to the sudden increase in cognitive load. To maximise the impact of these questions, timing becomes important. I employ a ‘Friendly, Friendly, Hard’ approach. This approach leads the person down a ‘Friendly’ path disarming them, and then all of a sudden the ‘hard’ question is thrown at them. For the truthful person, this is no problem, as they simply default back to truthful information they already have. For liars, they need to very quickly invent information that, due to the friendly path they have been walked down, have not had time to prepare. This will cause the liar to leak more obvious deceit clues. For added impact, when you ask the hard question lock your eyes directly onto the person.

An important thing to remember when you use this technique is to avoid asking a double-barrelled hard question; one that is made up of two parts. These types of questions give the person a choice of which part of the question to answer and with hard questions you do not want to make this option available to them. An example of a doubled-barrelled question: ‘Is this your best price and is the product good quality?’ In response to this, the person can reply by talking about the quality of the product, but avoid answering a direct question about price.

‘Friendly, Friendly, Hard’ example:

Q: ‘If we agree to purchase these, you can deliver them on time?’

A: Yes.

Q: ‘You’ve been providing these for several years?’

A: Yes

Q: ‘And there’s good after-sales service?’

A: Yes

Q: ‘And your best price is $1200?’

A: Yes

Q: ‘Why can’t you make the price cheaper?’ (Single-barrel, hard question)

The final question, will force the person to either answer truthfully, or quickly invent reasons to substantiate the price. It may make an honest person uncomfortable but they’ll recover quickly. For the liar, it will take some considerable mental effort and time to regain composure, and unless the person has practised this lie often – they’ll be swimming in deceit clues.

A final note: Regardless of whether you are interviewing a senior executive or a labourer, or negotiating a deal on a washing machine or a multi-million-dollar contract, the successful detection of deceit can save you both money and heartache. As there are no specific deceit clues that only occur during interviews and negotiation, to safeguard your interests as much as possible from deceit, I recommend reading the entire book and then combining the suggestions in the Handy Hints pages with the process of the MAGIC model.

REFERENCED MATERIAL AND ENDNOTES

1. Dr Paul Ekman IN: How to Spot a Liar by James Geary, www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/313/lies.html. See Caveat in this book stating limitations in lie detection accuracy.

2. University of Massachusetts study quoted in The College of St. Scholastica article, ‘Lying and Deception’ at http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/OB/lying.html. Also Psychologist Gerald Jellison (University of South California) found that people are lied to approximately one untruth every five minutes IN: How to Spot a Liar by James Geary http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/313/lies.html; Dr. Charles Ford, author of Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!, says that the average Joe lies seven times an hour -- if you count all the times people lie to themselves. Dr. Ford is a psychiatrist and professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. http://www.nlag.net/Sermons/Transcripts/mjdeadmendont.htm

3. Feldman, R. S. Forrest, J. A. And Happ, B. R. (2002) Self presentation and verbal deception: do self presenters live more?

4. According to Professor Bella Paulo’s research conducted at the University of Massachusetts in 1996

5. According to Professor Bella Paulo’s research conducted at the University of Massachusetts in 1996

6. Why Don’t We Catch Liars; Paul Ekman In: Social Research volume 63, 1996.

7. Ekman, P. (2001) Telling Lies.

8. Some research has shown that people from a deprived background or broken home have an increased ability to detect and tell lies. However, there is also contrary research to this finding.

9. Why Don’t We Catch Liars; Paul Ekman In: Social Research volume 63, 1996

10. Ekman and O’Sullivan, 1991; DePaulo and Pfeiffer, 1986. The only category that attained a high level were members of the US Secret Service reaching 80 per cent accuracy.

11. Kraut and Poe (1980) Humans as Lie Detectors: some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, pages 209 – 216. See also Kraut, R.E., and Poe, D. (1980). Behavioural roots of person perception: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784-798;

12. The comparison between college students and Customs officers in this context only relates to the ability to detect deceit as outlined in Kraut and Poe’s research. Customs officers in most countries receive professional training outside that examined by Kraut and Poe, as such it is not seriously asserted that Customs officers could be effectively replaced by college students – this is humour(!) Customs officers in most countries are professional and effective.

13. Who Can Catch a Liar? Ekman and O’Sullivan (1991), American Psychologist, Vol 46 pages 913-920.

14. A Few Can Catch a Liar, Ekman, O’Sullivan and Frank (1999). American Psychological Society, Vol 10, No 3.

15. Anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell found similar results

16. A Few Can Catch a Liar, Ekman, O’Sullivan and Frank (1999). American Psychological Society, Vol 10, No 3.

17. A study by Dr Maureen O’Sullivan PhD (Lie Wizard Project), at the University of San Francisco found 31 wizards among 13,000 people tested.

18. Though there are some limitations in that Doctor O’Sullivan found that all Lie Wizards were intelligent.

19. Article by Gregory A. Perez, ‘”A Rare Few Have the Skill to Detect the Flickers of Faults Will, Scientists Say‘” quoting the findings of Doctor Maureen O’Sullivan, at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249749

20. Having said that, nothing in this subject area is 100 per cent, so you will need to apply your own personal judgement as to how you use the results of the lie detection. As previously said, armed with the requisite knowledge and practice the accuracy of the lie detection will be beyond that of the average person.

21. Littlepage, G. E. and Pinealut, M. A. (1985). Detection of Deception of Planned and Spontaneous Communications. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(2), 195-201.

22. Analysis of blink rate patterns in normal subjects, Bentivoglio AR, Bressman SB, Cassetta E, Carretta D, Tonali P, Albanese A at Istituto di Neurologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9399231

23. Frogs into Princes, Neuro Linguistic Programming by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, Published by Real People Press/UT in 1979.

24. Based on the work by Doctor Alan Hirsch and Doctor Charles Wolf. See also, ‘“Gestures reveal what the lips conceal. (Literature on Mendacity)’“, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gestures+reveal+what+the+lips+conceal

25. President Clinton’s Grand jury Testimony of August 17, 1998,

26. About once every four minutes. The author of this book does not assert in any way that former US President Bill Clinton is a deceitful person; this book relies upon the findings in academically published articles and published reports that have examined the subject Grand jury testimony.

27. Peter Collett, author of The Book of Tells, published by Random House.

28. Information on training can be found at http://www.paulekman.com/

29. Based on the research by Dr Paul Ekman

30. Anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell found similar results

31. http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3930

About the Author

Dr David Craig achieved his doctorate in law by completing international research of undercover programs in Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Knowing when people tell the truth and when they lie can be a matter of life and death in the world of undercover work; this was the birth place for Lie Catcher.

Dr Craig has used the techniques in this book extensively and been published in Australia and overseas.

In addition to having over 20 years of criminological experience and research focused on deception and deception detection, Dr Craig has spent many hundreds of hours researching the theoretical work of some of the world’s finest academics on this subject, to produce Lie Catcher; a practical and easy-to-read book with appeal in the areas of law enforcement, education, parenting, relationships and business.