Human beings are not good at detecting deceit – we often think we are, however our ability to detect when somebody is lying is not much better than chance. Professionals, such as those working in law-enforcement have been found to be only slightly better at detecting deceit, when there is nothing evidential to suggest someone is lying (once there is evidence to suggest someone is hiding the truth, modern interviewing techniques are usually quite adept at uncovering further lies, etc). This inability puts us at a severe disadvantage when we are dealing with predatory individuals who may want to gain access to our assets, by conning their way into our homes, getting us to hand over personal/financial data, or gaining access to our children e.g. our kid’s soccer coach may be genuine in their desire to spend extra time coaching our “gifted” child, however they could also have nefarious purposes, and discerning the genuine motive behind their request can be difficult. This is especially true if this is the initial stage in their grooming process, when they will be at their most careful and conservative. There is much that has been written about the directions the eyes move in when a person is lying, and the physiological changes that the body goes through when involved in deceit, however most predators are aware of these, and know how to control them e.g. they know how to appear confident, make eye-contact and hold a gaze, etc., so unless the individual is extremely inexperienced and unskilled, it is unlikely that we will be able to detect deception this way. Looking at the content of their statements is often a more fruitful way of identifying when someone is lying or not, rather than relying on our ability to spot micro-expressions, and subtle physiological changes.

When someone is thinking about committing a crime, they create two “narratives”; one is the Schema, which includes the plan of how to commit the crime, and the other is the Detection Apprehension Schema, which includes what to say if/when they are caught. It is this alternative narrative, which contains the lies. One of the benefits of having this pre-built story, is that it helps the individual bypass the delay which is needed to create the lie i.e. the decision to lie, and the construction of the lie itself. One of the supposedly classic signals of lying is hesitation and pausing, however an experienced liar, knows how to avoid engaging in such a behavior. That said, just because a skilled liar has constructed an alternative narrative, doesn’t mean that they will stick to it rigidly, most DAS (Detection Apprehension Schemas) are loose, allowing for wiggle room, if it starts to appear that a particular part of the schema isn’t that robust. If a person doesn’t seem particularly committed to their story, or parts of it, neither should you be. A good lie, to be successful, has to be flexible enough to be altered, changed or redirected, if it’s not achieving its goal. This is why it is good not to fill in the gaps when you have a suspicion that someone isn’t telling the truth i.e. you don’t want to help color and direct the DAS. This is a common method that stage psychics use to make a person believe that they are talking to a dead relative; with a few questions they get the person they have selected to create their own narrative/DAS, which they buy into. With many liars, they also come to believe their own DAS, which is why a lack of confidence cannot be used as a means of detecting deceit.

Often the narratives, that those engaging in deceit create, are too rich in detail, and have too much information contained in them. Most truthful narratives don’t contain a lot of inter-linked facts and events. This is where verbal deceit, differs markedly from written deceit, where the storylines constructed are usually simpler and more basic. It seems as the Hebrew Bible puts it, that, “the liar extends their own testimony” i.e. they can’t stop adding to the story; they just don’t know where to stop. In this regard many lies/DAS are over-thought and designed to be able to withstand questioning from a multitude of directions. Someone who is telling the truth, is unlikely to consider all the possible avenues of questioning i.e. the truth isn’t bullet-proof in the same way a false narrative is. Gavin De Becker, sums it up nicely when he lists as one of the predatory warning signs: too much information. Though it’s almost impossible to discern in conversation, lies contain more nouns than truthful statements – if there are too many people, objects, places and things in someone’s statement/conversation, it may be time to start asking some questions, rather than simply accepting what’s being said.

When questioned about their “story”, most liars will try to deflect rather than deny – only when directly accused will they deny, and then to a greater extent than those who are telling the truth. Even experienced liars try to avoid making outright lies; these are too easy to prove wrong. Often lies will include omissions, rather than absolute falsehoods, or will be based upon an element of the truth rather than a complete fiction. When questioned about these things, rather than directly answer them, they may try to answer the question with a question e.g. “Why would I want to do that?”, this could be coupled with some form of statement around the person’s dignity: “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that?” i.e. making the question look like it calls into question the person’s character. By appearing offended, the person who is lying can make it look like you’re being ridiculous, and that you’ve crossed a line, that offends them. In many situations people will be too embarrassed to continue such a line of questioning, as it would be socially awkward to do so. They may add to both of these with some form of projection, to distance themselves from the lie e.g. “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that...only a sick person would think something like that is acceptable.” Another method they may use is to turn the question into an accusation - “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that...only a sick person would think something like that is acceptable…are you saying that you think I’d be capable of such a thing?” With such a projection the individual distances themselves even further, whilst at the same time implicitly demanding that proof is provided, to back up the implication of the question. Most people don’t possess evidence and facts to back up their line of questioning, and so end up backing down – after all it’s not fair to keep pursuing someone just based on a hunch. 

It’s of little use to detect deception, unless you’re going to act on your discoveries, and many people lack the social confidence to do so e.g. if you suspect your brother-in-law is a pedophile, based on their statements, and responses to your questions (if you have the confidence to engage and question them on this), are you prepared to cut ties with them, never allow them in your house when your kids are home (and don’t fool yourself into thinking, that it’s ok as along as you are there)? It is one thing to engage in the detection of deceit, another to act on your findings; many people would rather discount, deny, and explain away what they have discovered than accept it as the truth.