Rethinking How Investigators Detect Lies and Deceit

Evoking images of Big Macs and zombies, Dr. David Lieberman captivated more than 5,500 conference attendees during Monday afternoon’s keynote session at the 34th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference.

Dr. Lieberman wove clever, often humorous, storytelling into his presentation on the psychology behind detecting lies, and particularly, what actually works and why it works. A world-renowned psychotherapist in the fields of human behavior and interpersonal relationships, Dr. Lieberman conducts workshops around the world and has authored 13 books; his most recent is titled “Mindreader: The New Science of Deciphering What People Really Think, What They Really Want, and Who They Really Are.”

Dr. Lieberman cited studies that have found the human ability to detect lies and deceit only hovers between 50 and 60 percent. You probably recognize some of the most common indicators of deceitful behavior: pauses in speech, response latency, avoiding eye contact or fidgeting. However, citing new research in recent years, many of these indicators are turning out to be less reliable over time. If these recognizable cues were truly accurate, wouldn’t our ability to detect lies be improving over time?

“The fact is: yes, people who are lying do those things. The challenge, of course, is people who are [naturally] anxious and nervous also do them,” Dr. Lieberman said. “We need a mechanism, a means of filtering out and distinguishing between a person who is just simply nervous and anxious and somebody who is not.”

Similarly, investigators run the risk of obtaining false positive confessions when relying on commonly shared indicators of deceit. Dr. Lieberman cited behaviors like flip signs, when a person who may naturally be nervous or anxious becomes calm under pressure, making investigators misread what an interview subject’s motivations are.

If you want to bring someone’s true motivations into view, it helps to understand the dynamics between self-esteem – the way a person feels about themselves – and ego – the mechanism by which a person projects either who they truly are or who they want others to believe they are. For example, if a person has low self-esteem and “dented” ego, they are more likely to reveal a lack of confidence that an investigator may decide is an indicator of deceitful behavior.

First accepting that these classic mechanisms of recognizing deceit are not always accurate is key in learning how to reveal the truth.

Mindset of Innocent vs. Guilty People

“Innocent people want a free exchange of information.”

This was a key point for Dr. Lieberman’s presentation. The more conversation that an innocent person has, the better they feel. Guilty people, on the flip side, look to end conversations more quickly. As Dr. Lieberman outlined, even when an innocent person needs to clarify information or correct inaccuracies in their story, they are more likely to do so happily. On the contrary, a guilty person shortens their responses and grows frustrated when needing to explain themselves repeatedly. One of the best ways to extract this indicator of innocence or guilt is by asking questions that get more and more specific throughout the investigation.

Dr. Lieberman highlighted the widely accepted heuristic that a calm and confident demeanor equals innocence, and anxious and nervous one equals guilt. Given the potential for false positives through this line of thinking, impression management is, in Dr. Lieberman’s view, one of the most effective tools to knowing if someone is lying to you or not. A guilty person is consumed with how they are coming across and perceived; they oftentimes will overreact, rather than simply react, similar to when a gambler goes all-in when bluffing on a poker hand. Overcompensating or overcorrecting to give the impression of normalcy is a tell-tale sign of guilt, and a rule that can be applied time and again when conducting investigations.

Getting a Confession

“We all have a personal narrative. We all have a version of events and a way of seeing ourselves. You are not going to be effective in getting a confession from anyone if you blow up their narrative.”

Oftentimes, in trying to establish an emotional bridge between a subject and the truth, an investigator can “blow up” that bridge by being too forward with the language you use. It’s important to remember that no one wants to see themselves as a bad person; even a bad person wants to see themselves as a good person who did something bad.

Dr. Lieberman suggested staying away from language that makes a person feel like they did something wrong. Language is a powerful tool that can send an investigation awry, and by using words like embezzlement, lying or confession, an investigator inadvertently pits themselves against the interview subject. Shutting down denials verbally is the wrong approach, says Dr. Lieberman. Instead, choose nonverbal gestures like raising your hand, similar to the way a police officer stops traffic, or a seasoned teacher silences a raucous classroom.

“The less you say, the more power you have.”

One final way that Dr. Lieberman suggested obtaining a confession is by distorting the timeline of events. Making your subject aware that you’ve “always” known about what happened shifts the dynamic and puts you, as the investigator, into a power position. In doing so, you can ask questions like, “Is this something that you were involved with from the very beginning?”

In understanding the way people lie, then being proactive in how you recognize and respond to different forms of deliberate deceit, your investigations can become much more effective.