PART THREE: A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception: Synchrony

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.

In interviewing and detecting deception, synchrony plays an important role. Ideally, synchrony (e.g., harmony, congruence, and concordance) should occur between the interviewer and the interviewee; between what is said vocally and nonverbally; between the circumstances of the moment and what the subject is saying; and between events and emotions, including synchrony of time and space.

In an interview setting, the tone of both parties should mirror each other over time if synchrony exists.

A certain amount of harmony occurs in speech patterns, sitting styles, touching frequency, and general expressions. An interviewer and subject “out of sync” become subtly palpable because each will sit differently, talk in a manner or tone dissimilar from the other, and possibly have expressions at odds, if not totally disparate, with each other. These circumstances prohibit effective communication, an element pertinent to successful interviewing.

When interviewed, people who answer in the affirmative should have congruent head movement supporting what they say. Lack of synchrony often occurs when people say, “I did not do it,” while nodding their heads up and down as if to say, “yes, I did.” Or, when asked, “Would you lie about this?” their heads again bob up and down. Upon catching themselves in this faux pas, they then reverse their head movement. When observed, these instances are almost comical and amateurish. More often, a mendacious statement, such as “I did not do it,” precedes a noticeably delayed and less emphatic negative head movement. These behaviors are not synchronous and, therefore, more likely to be equated with a lie.

Synchrony should occur between what is being said and the events of the moment. During a street interview, if the subject interjects with superfluous information or facts totally irrelevant, the officer should note the disharmony. The information and facts should remain pertinent to the issue at hand, the circumstances, and the questions. When the answers are asynchronous with the event and questions, officers may assume that something likely is wrong or the person is stalling for time to fabricate a story. For instance, when parents report the alleged kidnapping of their infant, synchrony should occur between the event (kidnapping) and their emotions. The complainant should be clamoring for law enforcement assistance, emphasizing every detail, feeling the depth of despair, showing an eagerness to help, and willing to retell the story, even at personal risk. When placid individuals make such reports, they appear more concerned with furnishing one particular version of the story, lacking consistent emotional displays or seem more concerned about their well-being and how they are perceived vis-a-vis the egregious event (alleged kidnapping of a loved one). These examples do not exhibit synchrony with circumstances and prove inconsistent with honesty.

Last, synchrony should exist between events, time, and space. A person who delays reporting a significant event, such as the drowning of a fellow passenger, or one who travels to another jurisdiction to report the event rightfully should come under suspicion. Additionally, interviewers should remain cognizant of subjects who report events that would have been impossible for them to observe from the vantage point from which they tellmthe story. People who lie do not think of how synchrony fits into the equation; yet, it plays a major role during interviews and the reporting of crimes.

Source

Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The
Psychology of Persuasion (New York, NY:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1993),
167-207.


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 last part of the series...◦

PART THREE: A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception: Synchrony