Written by Guest Contributor Joe Navarro.
Joe Navarro is a 25 year veteran of the FBI where he served on the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program. He is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research where he teaches nonverbal communications. For 35 years he has been teaching and utilizing the study of nonverbal communications as well as its practical applications in everyday use and in forensic settings. He has lectured throughout the world including Wayne State University School of Medicine and at the Baylor College of Medicine - Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in Houston, Texas. Mr. Navarro brings together his academic background, scientific research, and practical experience catching spies to the art of observing and interpreting human behavior. Mr. Navarro is also the author of: Advanced Interviewing Techniques: Proven Strategies for Law Enforcement, Military, and Security Personnel
; Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror
; Phil Hellmuth Presents Read 'Em and Reap: A Career FBI Agent's Guide to Decoding Poker Tells
; and his most recent book, What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People
.
For 30 years, the literature on interviewing has emphasized the use of both verbal and nonverbal cues in detecting deception during the interview process. Much of that emphasis paralleled the immense amount of research during that same time period in the area of psychology and the study of nonverbal behavior.
Unfortunately, many people still misinterpret a significant amount of nonverbal behavior as indicative of deception when, in fact, it just may be nervousness or such behavior as face touching that also can indicate honesty.
Repeated studies have shown that traditional methods of detecting deception during interviews succeed only 50 percent of the time, even for experienced law enforcement officers.
In spite of this, investigators still need the ability to test the veracity of those they interview. To do so, investigators require a model that incorporates research
with empirical experience to differentiate honesty from deception.
They can use an alternative paradigm for detecting deception based on four critical domains:
- comfort/discomfort
- emphasis
- synchrony
- perception management.
Comfort/Discomfort
Comfort is readily apparent in conversations with family members and friends. People sense when others have a good time and when they feel comfortable in their presence. Experiencing comfort in the presence of strangers becomes more difficult, especially in stressful situations, such as during an interview. A person’s level of comfort or discomfort is one of the most important clues interviewers should focus on when trying to establish veracity. Tension and distress most often manifest upon guilty people who must carry the knowledge of their crimes with them. Attempting to disguise their guilt places a distressing cognitive load on them as they struggle to fabricate answers to what otherwise would be simple questions.
When comfortable, an individual’s nonverbal behavior tends to mirror the other person present. For example, if one person leans forward, the other tends to do so as well. Or, if one leans to the side with hands in pockets and feet
crossed, the other person may do the same. Subconsciously, people demonstrate their comfort with whom they are talking. When touched, people may touch back to emphasize a point. Some may display their comfort more openly, such as showing more of their torso and the insides of their arms and legs. People who speak the truth more often display comfort because they have no stress to conceal nor do they have guilty knowledge to make them feel uncomfortable.
While seated at a table, people comfortable with each other will move objects aside so that nothing blocks their view. Over time, they may draw closer so that they do not have to talk as loud, and their breathing rhythm, tone of speech, pitch, and general demeanor will become similar.
Subtleties of comfort contrast with discomfort. People show discomfort when they do not like what is happening to them, what they are seeing or hearing, or when others compel them to talk about things that they would prefer to keep hidden. People first display discomfort physiologically—heart rates quicken, hairs stand up, perspiration increases, and breathing becomes faster. Beyond the physiological responses, which are autonomic and require very little thinking, people primarily manifest
discomfort nonverbally instead of vocally. They tend to move their bodies by rearranging themselves, jiggling their feet, fidgeting, or drumming their fingers when scared, nervous, or significantly uncomfortable.
If, while the interviewer remains relaxed and poised, the interviewee continually looks at the clock, sits tensely, or does not move (“flash frozen”), the interviewer may discern a lack of comfort even though everything may appear normal to the untrained eye.
Interviewees show discomfort when they repeatedly talk about finalizing the interview or when disruptions appeal to them. People tend to distance themselves from those with whom they feel uncomfortable. Even while sitting side by side, people will lean away from those with whom they feel uncomfortable, often moving either their torsos or their feet away or toward an exit, which nonverbally exhibits displeasure.
These actions can occur in interviews due to the subject matter discussed. Likewise, people create artificial barriers with either their shoulders and arms or with inanimate objects in front of them. For example, by the end of one interview, a very uncomfortable and dishonest interviewee had built a little barrier in front of himself using soda cans, pencil holders, and various documents, ultimately planting a backpack on the table between himself and the interviewer. At the time, the interviewer did notrecognize the subject’s obvious intent of creating a barrier.
Other clear signs of discomfort include rubbing the forehead near the temple region, squeezing the face, rubbing the neck, or stroking the back of the head with the hand.
Interviewees often will show their displeasure by rolling their eyes out of disrespect; picking lint off themselves (preening); talking down to the interviewer; giving short answers; becoming resistant, hostile, or sarcastic; or displaying “micro gestures” with indecent connotations, such as “giving the finger.”
Eyes also serve as formidable communicators of discomfort, yet investigators often ignore them during interviews. People use their eyes as a blocking mechanism similar to folding their arms across their chest or turning away from those with whom they disagree. In a similar response, when people do not like something they hear, they usually close their eyes as if to block out what they just heard. They do this subconsciously and so often that others do not pay attention to it in day-to-day affairs. People may close their eyes before touching or rubbing them as if to further block or relieve themselves of what they just heard. Interviewers can capitalize on this behavior by noting when interviewees block with their eyes. This may point to questions that trouble the subject or to issues with which they are struggling. In most cases, eye blocking proves extremely accurate in highlighting issues problematic to the interviewee.
Additionally, when people feel troubled or frustrated or they have a subdued temper tantrum, their eyelids may close or flutter rapidly as an expression of their sentiment.
Research also has shown that when people are nervous or troubled, their blink rate increases, a phenomenon often seen with liars under stress.
In one case where investigators closely videotaped the interviewee, observers in another room catalogued the subject’s blink rate increase from 27 times per minute to 84 times a minute during stressful questions. Investigators should consider all of the eye manifestations that fall under the comfort/discomfort domain as powerful clues to how subjects register information or what questions prove problematic.
When interpreting eye contact, however, many misconceptions still exist. Little or no eye contact is perceived erroneously by some as a classic sign of deception, especially during questioning, while the truthful should “lock eyes.” This may be accurate for some but not for all. For instance, research shows that Machiavellian people actually will increase eye contact during deception.
This may occur because they know that many interviewers look for this feature. Also, some people learned to look down or away from parental authority as a
form of respect when questioned or scolded. Investigators should remain aware of changes in eye contact and eye behavior during interviews. They should establish the interviewee’s default pattern of eye behavior during benign questioning then look for changes or indicators of discomfort as the interview progresses, which often gives clues to deception.
Sources
Fred E. Inbau and et. al., Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, 4th ed.
(Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.,
2001), ix.
Charles V. Ford, Lies! Lies! Lies!: The
Psychology of Deceit (Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996), 200.
Ibid., 217.
B.M. DePaulo, J.I. Stone, and G.D.
Lassiter, Deceiving and Detecting Deceit, in
The Self and Social Life, edited by B.R.
Schlender, (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
1985), 323-370.
Mark L. Knapp and Judith A. Hall,
Nonverbal Communication in Human
Interaction, 3d ed. (Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, College Publishers, 1997), 277.
Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit
in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage
(New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1985),
185.
Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear (New
York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997), 133.
David G. Givens, The Nonverbal
Dictionary of Gestures, Signs & Body
Language Cues (Spokane, WA: Center for
Nonverbal Studies, 1998-2002); http://
members.aol.com/nonverbal2/diction1.htm
Joe Navarro and John R. Schafer,
“Detecting Deception,” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, July 2001, 10.
“Suggesting the principles of conduct laid
down by Machiavelli; specifically marked by
cunning, duplicity, or bad faith,” Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v.
“Machiavellian.”
R.E. Exline, J. Thibaut, C.B. Hickey, and
P. Gumpert, Visual Interaction in Relation to
Machiavellianism and an Unethical Act, in R.
Christie and F.L. Geis (eds.), Studies in
Machiavellianism (New York, NY: Academic
Press, 1970).
Joe Navarro has a new book releasing soon, preorder it today, Louder Than Words: Take Your Career from Average to Exceptional with the Hidden Power of Nonverbal Intelligence
Join us tomorrow when we explore the second domain...◦
PART ONE: A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception: Comfort/Discomfort
Posts
