Sergeant Harris emphasizes that coercive interview techniques are ineffective when trying to illicit information from a suspect: “I treat them with dignity,” he told ABC News’ Chris Cuomo. “If they can see me as a person that views them with dignity, the chances of communicating are starting to open up.”

Indeed it’s true: when trying to illicit information from someone, research shows that non-coercive interview techniques based on rapport building have been proven to be the most effective.  One extremely important part of rapport building involves reading emotions and then reacting to those emotions appropriately.

Take a look at the video below for Part 1 of “Inside the Interrogation Room”.

Also, don’t forget to take a look at Dr. Matsumoto, Dr. Hwang and Dr. Frank’s front cover article “The Role of Emotion in Predicting Violence” in this month’s edition of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

According to her husband Justin Adams, the pregnant mother of three was last seen after she went to go meet a friend at a local Mc Donalds and never made it home. He then later recanted his story and said his wife was soliciting ads on Craigslist and was going to meet a client.

After her initial disappearance, Justin made an emotional plea, seen below. Do you see anything suspicious?

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’ve taken the time in this blog post to compile some past blogs which feature video footage where you can practice your deception detection skills.

Don’t forget that we’re also open to suggestions. If there is a video that you would like us to take a look at, don’t hesitate to contact us. Your suggestion may even become the feature of our next blog post!

Microexpression Examples

Spelling Bee

Michael Astorga

Chris Brown on Good Morning America

Hot Spotting

Jonathan Edwards

Balloon Boy, Salahis, Scott Peterson

Roger Clemens

Gestures

Habit or gestural slip?

A Christmas Story

Emotion

Bill O’Reilly on The View

LeBron James

On Dec. 12th a Canadian court official, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, ruled that Muslim women must remove their face covering such as the burka or niqab before reciting the Canadian oath of citizenship.

cbcnews Canada describes how the decisions regarding head dressings is effecting Canada’s  entire legal system.

An Ontario woman, whose name has been withheld, is waiting to hear if she can testify in a case with her niqab.  She is the complainant in a sexual assault case. The defending lawyers say that they want to and should be allowed to see her facial expressions.

Do you agree or disagree that she should be allowed to testify with her face veil?

In Quebec there is a “reasonable accommodation”  debate going on regarding face veils.  A woman was barred this past summer from being a Lac St. Louis Regional Soccer Association referee simply because she wears a niqab.

Read the rest of the article to see how this controversy is affecting other countries as well.

Photo Courtesy of Columbia University

In a past blog “The Language of Language” Humintell noted that computer science professor and spoken language expert Dr. Julia Hirschberg was setting out to examine what people unconsciously communicate through things such as intonation, accent and phrasing.

Now Dr. Hirschberg is teaching computers how to spot deception detection via programming them to parse speech for these such patterns mentioned above.

This lie detection software provides clues to the intentions/emotions of the voices it analysis via loudness, changes in pitch, pauses between words, ums and ahs, nervous laughs and dozens of other tiny signs that can suggest a lie.

The applications of such a device are numerous:  This software could be used in call centers, business meetings and in online dating services throughout the world.

This research development is closely related to another study conducted by James Harnsberger, Ph.D. that we recently blogged about.  That research also analyzed the human voice with its focus on stress indicators.

The New York Times article goes on to state that algorithms developed by Dr. Hirschberg and colleagues have been able to spot a liar 70 percent of the time in test situations.

Don’t forget Big Brother is not only watching but soon to be listening as well.

“This [study] shows infants will imitate behavior from a reliable adult,” says second author Ivy Brooker, “In contrast, the same behavior performed by an unreliable adult is interpreted as irrational or inefficient, therefore not worth imitating.”

The babies were divided in two groups; with reliable or unreliable testers.  To determine the reliability of experimenters they looked into a container with a reaction of excitement.  Then the infants were invited to discover if the container actually had a toy in it or was empty.

The follow up experiment then had the experimenter use their forehead in lieu of their hands to turn on a light.  The researchers recorded whether the infants would imitate the experimenter.  The study findings, only 34% of infants of unreliable testers followed the strange assignment.

“Like older children, infants keep track of an individual’s history of being accurate or inaccurate and use this information to guide their subsequent learning,” says senior researcher Diane Poulin-Dubois.

According to Dennis Merritt Jones, a Huffington Post author, keynote speaker and spiritual mentor, some of those white lies are harmful and holding us prison.

In his article, “You Lie More Often Than You Think“  he suggests that we are conflicted between what we really think or want and our desire to not risk the disapproval of others.

Dennis describes an assignment he once gave to his students in a relationship class.  He required them to go one week communicating exactly what they were thinking and feeling to those they came in contact with such as their family, spouses, friends and even strangers.  The exercise revealed that many people are challenged in their ability to be honest.

He also points out that Buddha taught that attachment is at the root of all suffering.  This can mean attachment to anything:  a person, a job, a relationship, exercise, acceptance etc.  Saying ‘No” to someone can be done without harm to you or the person who is requesting something of you.  Just remember when you say “no”, it is not what you say but how you say it.

He goes on to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, “The only sin that we never forgive in each other is a difference in opinion.”  His advice, ‘Explain to them [the person asking something of you]  that you are not rejecting them, only their request.  Know who you are and be free.’

The article goes on to ask these important questions:

Are you free to have a difference of opinion with others and express it without fear?  Can you say no without fear? And do you offer others the same freedom to say no to you without sending them on a guilt trip?

So, what are your answers?  Are you truly free in your relationships?

Well, that is exactly what computer science professor and expert in spoken language, Julia Hirschberg, is setting out to examine.  Things to take into consideration, according to Hirschberg, “How do people convey that it’s another person’s turn to speak? What do people mean when they say ‘okay’? There are so many different ways it’s used.”

Reported on PHYSORG.COM Hirschberg is working with Barnard psychologist, Michelle Levine and Andrew Rosenberg on her current research project that was funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to study deception in speech across cultures.

In 2003 Hirschberg began her work with deception in speech, which is one of the largest collections of such data partly because, as she purports, it is so difficult to collect real lies in situations where the truth is known.

“The best liars are the people who tell the truth most of the time,” said Hirschberg, who received her Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Pennsylvania.  This year, she received the International Speech Communication Association’s Medal for Scientific Achievement as well as the James A. Flanagan Award for Speech and Audio Processing from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

She hopes that her research will make great strides in the fields of security such as deception detection and language development.

What are your thoughts on this type of research? Do you think it is important to be able to delineate the signs of deceptions on a regular basis, or should such research findings be kept for science and security fields?  Could such research findings possibly impede our social relationships?

So how can someone actually tell if a person is lying?

According to the experts such as Dr. Matsumoto and Dr. Mark Frank, there is no one tell tale sign of deception.  Average men and woman (without training) are only able spot deception about 50% of the time.  Yep that’s right, their odds of detecting deception is no better than chance.

An interesting article in The Morning Post Exchange, depicts Pamela Meyer, a social media expert with an MBA from Harvard and a Masters in Public Policy, stating that we are lied to between 10 to 200 times a day.

In the article, Meyer goes on to delineate the pandemic of deception she believes we are facing today.  Throughout the accompanied video she “arms people with tools that can help take back the truth”.  Much of what she says is backed by scientific research on nonverbal communication, body language and the seven universal facial expression of emotion.

Scientific American also chimes in on the debate of body language and communication.  The article comments on mis-communication due to our advances in technology.  With the popularity of texting and emailing (especially since the invention of smartphones, which makes access to the internet readily available)  communication has lost some important social aspects necessary for understanding.   The succinct article suggests that communication is a two-way street and hand gestures as well as vocal inflection and microexpressions play a significant role in how we are interpreted (i.e. understood) and how we interpret others.

As our technology advances exponentially, we are able to realize the benefits and limitations of the devices we use today to detect deception.

One example is the polygraph machine, which was invented in the early 20th century which is still being used today. The reliability of the polygraph is debatable and it is not admissible in a court of law, but law enforcement agencies use polygraph machines all the time.  So what are the benefits and limitations of such a device? We previously blogged about the polygraph conundrum and its pros and cons.

Take a look at the video below from Michael Shermer (which we originally viewed on Eric Goulard’s blog), which poses a potential answer to the question:  Can the polygraph machine really scientifically measure if someone is lying?

Click here to view the embedded video.

According to CreditCards.com the future of banking has arrived.  Just like with the advancements on the iPhone and computers, ATM’s have launched into the technology race.  We now have 3D touchless ATM’s.  The idea was created by Brazilian Itartec and was first revealed in Sao Paulo, Brazil this past summer.

The new ATM accustomed with 3D technology and a completely touch-free interface allows the user to navigate with the swipe of the hand.  It also comes equipped with Face Tracking, which could virtually eliminate card/cash jacking.  A camera in the ATM will focus in on your facial features to identify you.  This type of technology is already in place as a security measure in a variety of industries and could eliminate the global need for ATM cards.

Other security ideas being developed for the ATM of the future is a “pillar” type design that uses your fingerprint to read  the biometrics under your skin and detect your body’s personal chemistry to identify you.  The “pillar” ATM is being designed more for underdeveloped, illiterate countries and icons will replace the now used keyboard and display screen.

Industry veteran Bob Tramontano, vice president of marketing at NCR, comments, “I don’t think holograms are ready for prime time as far as the technology is concerned,” says Tramontano. “but I think gesture-based interaction is something that will be very appropriate in the near to distant future.”

This new technology provides greater security for ATM users and for banks. It will be harder, with this technology in place, to force someone to withdrawal cash or to try and hijack the entire cash dispenser.

There are other prototypes that are focusing on a myriad of divergent security measures such as a built in audio lie detector and replacing the traditional moneygram to ones that can be sent via the internet right from the ATM machine itself.

There is also a cash into gold machine coined “Gold to Go”.  Just visit the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas to see how this one works.

For detailed information on ATMs of the future watch the Youtube video below (it’s in Portuguese but the video shows how the technology works).

Click here to view the embedded video.