'Thin-slicing' experience

You’ve likely experienced a near-instantaneous flash of perception when meeting someone for the first time. Perhaps it was a strong feeling you had something in common, a shared interest or similar line of work. You felt an immediate rapid cognition of the experience, and it revealed itself to have been predictive — and accurate. Cognitive psychologists refer to this phenomenon as “thin-slicing,” by which an experience or observation reveals an immediate recognition of a familiar pattern. Within as little as five seconds, individual characteristics are often visible or inferred through the thin-slice peephole.

Thin-slicing, also known as “System 1 processing,” is considered a critical-thinking shortcut (intuitive, inductive, recognition primed). It contrasts with “System 2 processing,” which requires slower, rational, analytic, deductive, rule-based thinking. Examples of System 1 processing are the interviewer who instantly surmises an interview subject is lying, a museum curator who immediately “knows” something isn’t quite right about a recent (expensive) Egyptian museum acquisition, or the fireman on the scene who senses an impending roof collapse and evacuates his team just in time. Yet while thin-slicing can prove to be a vital tool, it’s also one best left in the hands of experts. (See “Critical Thinking and Decisionmaking: Avoiding the Perils of Thin-Slicing,” by Patrick Croskerry, M.D., Ph.D., Annals of Emergency Medicine, December 2006.)

How our brains thin-slice experience

We humans are of two minds: the conscious, rational mind and the “adaptive unconscious” (the part of the mind that engages in the thin-slicing process). The conscious mind excels at gathering sensory input and determining what to do with this data. In contrast, the adaptive unconscious is adept at evaluating minute bits of evidence about the external world — hence the term, “thin slice” — and then determining instinctively (and reflexively) how to react (emotion) or respond (emotional intelligence). This adaptive unconscious mind remains hidden from our awareness — until it presents us with some flash of cognition.

At times, that ability to thin slice has proven to be very effective. In The New York Times best-selling book, “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking” (Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company, 2005, New York City), author Malcolm Gladwell explored the work of renowned marital expert John Gottman. Gladwell explains that Gottman can determine with 95% accuracy if a couple will still be together in 15 years — all within one hour of simply observing them. Gottman’s accuracy drops to 90% with only 15 minutes of observing couples. Even with such a reduced observation time, Gottman’s results support the thin-slicing phenomenon.

Thin-slicing for job, audit and criminal interviews

In the hands (or brains) of experts, thin-slicing can be an important tool to help different types of interviewers determine how best to pursue a line of inquiry — including acting on a hunch that interviewees are deceiving, misdirecting or lying to them. This can be useful whether you’re interviewing a job candidate or investigating a potential fraudster. But use thin-slicing with caution and alongside other techniques.

Don Rabon, CFE, author, and president of Successful Interview Techniques, understands the pitfalls of running with just a thin slice or gut instinct without the help of other cognitive pathways.

“Some studies have shown that we form impressions of another in the first seven seconds. Other studies place it as low as one-tenth of a second,” Rabon says in an email interview.

“My initial implicit impression of the interviewee is based in part on years of experience. However, in my meta-cognition — thinking about my thinking — I apply personal, professional skepticism. I am open to the idea there may be influencing factors below my level of consciousness in play that could be in error. Therefore, while I attend to my initial impression, I am not anchored to it.”

Indeed, that gut instinct can raise useful red flags. But it can also come into conflict with our rational minds and what we see around us, often requiring an expert mind and a broader set of tools to ascertain the truth.

The amygdala (the brain’s emotion-processing center in the limbic system) is responsible for that fight-or-flight response that served humans well in the past when they had to protect themselves against wild animals and other dangers. And in the modern world, that limbic system still heavily influences our decision-making process. That’s largely because it reacts faster than the newer prefrontal cortex portion of the brain (the decision-making center) when we’re initially faced with potential threats. This results in an “amygdala hijack” that prevents you from thinking clearly or rationally. (See “Amygdala hijack: when emotions take over,” by Nancy Moyer, M.D., Healthline.com, April 22, 2019.)

A study testing reactions to job assessments in two different groups illustrates how humans interpret different visual and verbal cues, and how that gut instinct can influence perceptions. In the study, researchers offered one group negative performance feedback accompanied by positive emotional signals — namely, nods and smiles. But in the other group, they gave positive feedback that was delivered critically with facial expressions that conveyed disappointment, such as smirks and lack of eye contact. Employees who received positive feedback with negative emotional signals reported feeling worse about their performances than did the participants who’d received good-natured negative feedback. (See “Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors,” by Marie T. Dasborough, The Leadership Quarterly, April 2006.)

The combination of thin-slicing with an amygdala hijack may raise questions about a particular experience for the interviewee or the interviewer. Such a “pattern interrupt” can be interpreted as a potential red-flag warning that something might be amiss with the individual or the experience. The trick, of course, is to determine whether those red flags are valid or not, and such occurrences may warrant deeper assessment and evaluation.

The lesson for managers in this job-performance study is that the feedback delivery was more important than the message content. So often, it’s not what you say that’s important; it’s how you say it that counts. In fact, how you say something may launch the amygdala hijack effect faster in another person than what it is you actually say.

When thin-slicing goes bad

There’s a menacing side to thin-slicing that has roots in prejudice and bias, and it’s known as the “Warren Harding Error,” named after the former U.S. president. At six feet tall, Harding was extremely likeable and strikingly handsome — but he wasn’t particularly smart, often lost his moral compass and was very gullible. Many consider him to be the country’s worst president. (See “The Warren Harding Error: Implicit Bias Part 2,” Curriculum Management Solutions, Inc. May 14, 2019.)

The general public had the unwarranted assumption that Harding was a man of courage, intelligence and integrity. His charisma, presence and appearance played into their superficial and incorrect assumptions. This error is one of implicit bias where unconscious assumptions about someone aren’t surrendered even when people are presented with evidence to the contrary.

This effect plays into the popular stereotype that automatically associates leadership ability with physical stature. Such bias represents more of an immediate emotional reaction than rapid cognition. That’s worrisome as it reveals that important leadership positions in the public and private sectors are often determined by less rational decision-making than would otherwise seem.

Timing can enhance Warren Harding Error

The “primacy and recency effects” (first-impression bias) sometimes work in tandem with the Warren Harding Error to cement an incorrect impression of someone due to the inordinate positive or negative influence that the most recent information (rumor or press coverage, for example) may have conveyed to others.

Politicians use the primacy and recency effects as strategic weapons in their electoral campaigns by ensuring that the most recent positive publicity about themselves — or negative attack ads about the opposing candidate — are in the public domain. (See “ Timing is everything? Primacy and recency effects in voter mobilization campaigns,” by Costas Panagopoulos, Political Behavior, May 16, 2010.)

Thin-slicing experience requires caution

Our brains rely on mental shortcuts to simplify making critical and noncritical decisions from all the sensory input we encounter every day. There are many neural-processing shortcuts, called “heuristics,” and each occurs in different contexts. It’s important to be cautious, however, as these detours can result in errors and bias. Fraud examiners should keep these caveats in plain sight to maintain a proper perspective during investigations and suspect interviews.

Most communication is honest, so it’s to our advantage to presume other people communicate truthfully to facilitate efficient communication. But this presumption leaves us open to being deceived on occasion. Being suspicious of others can arise from obvious deception motives, questionable demeanor or body language — when communication content is at odds with known facts, and context is misaligned.

What has thin-slicing taught us?

We know from decades of research that people are, overall, better than one would think at decoding many facets of a stranger’s personality and persona based on an immediate first impression in social situations. And thin-slicing is a useful tool, but it’s not one to be used by itself.

Consider other variables when you’re assessing thin-slicing’s effectiveness. For instance, sensitivity to nonverbal cues for determining personalities works best with people from the same culture. (See “ 'Thin slices’ of life,” by Lea Winerman, Monitor on Psychology, journal of the American Psychological Association, March 2005.)

Research also shows that women make more accurate assessments using thin-slicing than do men. (See “A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impression,” by Dana R. Carney et. al, Journal of Research in Personality, Jan. 30, 2007.) And strangers often assess each other through the cues most readily available to them, the most obvious being physical appearance. This tendency revealed itself in a 2007 study that suggested a connection between physical cues and shared stereotypes. (See “The effect of thin slicing on structured interview decision,” by Gregory F. Schmidt, graduate thesis, Scholar Commons, University of South Florida.) When that happens, stereotyping becomes profiling.

Thin-slicing is a fascinating ability unleashed by the complex and mysterious human brain. For fraud examiners, learning to harness this innate “mind hack” capability, while avoiding its pitfalls, could raise investigations to an entirely new level. The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes perhaps offered the best advice on how to approach strangers and experiences in Arthur Conan Doyle’s book “The Sign of Four” when he said, “It is of the first importance not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities … a client is to me a mere unit, a factor in a problem. The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning.”

Donn LeVie Jr., CFE, is a Fraud Magazine staff writer, speaker and leadership positioning/influence strategist. He’s president of Donn LeVie Jr. STRATEGIES, LLC, which conducts corporate programs on intelligent leadership influence, and E.P.I.C. Results Coaching, where he leads several virtual strategic coaching and mentoring programs for executive leaders and high-performing professionals. His coaching website is epicsresultscoaching.com. Contact him at donn@epicresultscoaching.com or donn@donleviejrstrategies.com.