All Rights Reserved - De Corporis Voce - Andrea Zinno
If you look away, you are lying; if you don't, you are lying
A title that is at least ambiguous and cryptic, but deliberately chosen to highlight an extremely delicate aspect of the possibility of determining whether a subject is lying or not, regardless of whether it is during a conversation or a formal interrogation.
Well aware that there can be numerous signals in this regard, and also referring to the risks involved in such an activity of reading—risks discussed in one of my previous short articles—here I would like to narrow the topic to the «gaze» and how it changes during communication, also remembering that this is not limited to eye movements, which are certainly primary in importance, but also to those of other parts of the body which, in any case, have direct consequences on its direction.
With reference to the FACS (2), I am therefore talking about both the Action Units that directly involve the eyes (AU7 and, above all, AU43, with AU45 which, as its frequency increases, can indicate a situation of stress), and those that affect the gaze, so AU61 and AU62, first of all, which highlight the turning of the eyes, respectively, to the left and to the right, but also the Action Units that involve head movements and, specifically, the left and right rotations - AU51 and AU52 - and its lowering - AU54 - which has a particular meaning, indicating, especially when also accompanied by the lowering of the eyes - AU64 - a possible feeling of shame or defeat (this, for example, is the typical position assumed by children when they are scolded because they are caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing).
The topic is delicate, as I was saying, and it is so because of the contrast between voluntary actions and involuntary reactions, which, in the case of someone who is deliberately lying, struggle with each other in an attempt to prevent the lie from being exposed. (4)
The ambiguity, if it can be called that, is partly linked to the widespread belief that the liar tends to avert their gaze from the person questioning them—or, in general, from their interlocutor—a sort of unconscious, automatic reaction that highlights a situation of tension and, consequently, a desire to withdraw and escape. (1)
However, this involuntary behavior is contrasted by the voluntary behavior of the liar, who, being well aware of the risk arising from the actions of the limbic system, which governs our involuntary emotional responses, tries to mask or counteract them by adopting the opposite behavior, which leads him, in fact, to look the interlocutor in the eyes, almost as if to say “see, I am not afraid to look you in the eyes and therefore I am telling the truth”.
The liar, therefore, during the conversation, will tend to reinforce their deceitful arguments by staring fixedly into the eyes of their interlocutor (often, especially in the case of the serial liar, this fixed gaze may be accompanied by the micro-expression formed by AU12 and AU14, which, although fleeting, reveals the satisfaction of the deception). (3)
It then becomes clear, I fear, that there is a greater difficulty than is often assumed, a perception also fueled by the excessive simplifications often seen in literary, television, and cinematic fiction, where the expert on duty needs only a glance to spot a lie—a glance that professionals know is almost impossible in real life, where determining the truthfulness or otherwise of what is said requires long and complex ex-post analyses, which are in fact impossible without the aid of video recordings of the conversation, interview, or interrogation.
What should we do, then, or at least what can we consider doing, when our task is to understand whether our interlocutor is lying or not? The answer, as usual, is not to focus on the single event, but rather on their variations, taking into account the context and, if possible, the baseline behavior of our interlocutor. In short, nothing new compared to the well-known rule of the 3 Cs, which reminds us of the importance of Context, Complexity, and Consistency.
Therefore, our attention, both during the conversation and in the desirable subsequent analysis, will be on the changes in gaze and what triggered them, whether it is a question, a remark, or a direct accusation. Particular attention, in this sense, should be given to those involuntary movements, those micro-expressions, that cause the interlocutor, even if only for a fraction of a second, to lose voluntary control of their facial expressions, revealing what they are trying to hide—assuming that is the case, of course—with the firmness of their gaze.
Interesting, in this regard, the
“protocol for the evaluation of statements by subjects undergoing interview/interrogation”
, proposed by Mastronardi and Mangiameli (a summary of it is available in (5)), which proposes a methodological approach, divided into seven phases, ranging from the definition of the
baseline
(basic behavior), to the identification of the so-called
Red Flags
, that is, those non-verbal signals synonymous with inconsistency with what is being said, up to a repetition of the interview/interrogation, this time focused on those
segments
where the
Red Flags
have been considered particularly significant, in order to
put to the test
the interviewed or interrogated subject.
Andrea Zinno - De Corporis Voce
Bibliographic references
All Rights Reserved - De Corporis Voce - Andrea Zinno