Understanding the art of deception

Honoré de Balzac, the 19th century French author known for his realistic depiction of human nature, once wrote: “Whoever talks too much wants to deceive.” Many may disagree with that statement, especially extroverts who are naturally talkative. But what’s certain is that humans have long practiced the art of deception in love, war, politics — and fraud. And like Balzac, we’re keen to find ways to expose a liar, even if sometimes we’re wrong in our assessments.

David Lieberman, Ph.D., a psychotherapist and an expert in the field of human behavior, has dedicated much of his career to unlocking the mysteries of the human mind and helping the public, including fraud examiners, understand some of the signs of deceit. Lieberman, a keynote speaker at the 34th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference, expounded his ideas to a packed session and later spoke to Fraud Magazine during the event in Seattle. Here we look at some of this expert’s techniques for catching fraudsters in a lie and how to get them to confess.

Lieberman first caught the public’s eye when he published his second book “Never Be Lied to Again,” in 1998. Timing proved “very fortuitous,” he says, as this happened to be the same year that lawmakers impeached former U.S. President Bill Clinton for, among other charges, lying under oath following revelations about his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lying soon became a hot topic, and the book quickly found a place on The New York Times top 10 bestseller list. Lieberman has since become a valued expert in the field, training personnel in the U.S. military, the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency.

Even so, he’s the first to concede that not all the techniques in the book stood the test of time, particularly the parts about body language. “It was a great book except for the fact that I got some of it wrong,” he says. Most of us are now familiar with widely known nonverbal indicators that reveal that someone might be lying, such as failure to make eye contact and fidgeting, etc. But studies have shown that many of these cues and signs are inefficient and can also lead to false assumptions, says Lieberman.

Not only is body language perhaps less effective than experts had thought, but it also arguably becomes less relevant in an age when we’re increasingly communicating through computers or mobile phones, which can hide those corporeal traits or gestures that hint at some sort of subterfuge.

It’s still true that those who are unaware they’re being watched in public places will provide clues to their thoughts through body language, but those in a guarded situation, such as an interrogation room, are likely to be very self-conscious and make efforts to display all the “right” mannerisms. “In a guarded situation, if I am in a negotiation and I am speaking to someone who is savvy, I know he is going to be practiced in how he is coming across,” says Lieberman.

Body language and mannerisms can be complex, too. “The fact is that people who are lying do [fidget and avoid eye contact],” he says. “The challenge, of course, is that the people who are anxious and nervous also do. So, we need a mechanism, a means of filtering out and distinguishing between a person who’s just simply nervous and anxious and somebody who is not.”

That’s why understanding the psychology of the subject is so important but often counterintuitive. In what Lieberman calls “flip signs,” there are even cases where a person may be naturally nervous and fidgety when telling the truth but “calm as a cucumber” when they’re lying. False reads can easily lead you astray if you don’t understand the psychology of the person.

Language and the free exchange of information

Lieberman’s latest book “Mind Reader” focuses on human psychology but also on how we use language and what that says about people’s thoughts and wants. How we use words and recall events is more difficult to fake than body language and, so far, this has stood the test of time as a good indicator of suspicious behavior.

“Even if somebody who is practiced at knowing what to say and how to say it, it is so difficult for them to keep track,” says Lieberman. “That’s because how we say it requires a degree of awareBrain drain
Because telling lies does require much more mental energy than recalling the truth, liars often use tricks to tell tales in a way that they avoid the need for deep thought and reflection, says David Lieberman, Ph.D., a psychotherapist and an expert in the field of human behavior. In his book “Mind Reader,” Lieberman says be aware of the following signs that this might be happening.

Pontificating and philosophizing: Unless someone is confessing, any statement that expounds a sense of fairness or justice can be problematic. Watch for phrases like, “It shouldn’t be this way” or “This is not the country I remember.” This type of pontificating is a sign that the person is unconsciously seeking an internal justification for what they’ve done and a way to present themselves as a moral or good person.

Self-referral statements: This is when a person refers back to what they said or wrote with phrases like, “As I previously mentioned” and “As I explained earlier.” Because it takes more brain power to lie, this is a way to avoid giving incorrect information. Liars are more likely to repeat these kinds of phrases to keep their stories straight and reduce what Lieberman calls the “cognitive load.”

The complexity of simplicity: Honest statements typically involve more complex sentence structures, with phrases such as except, without, but or apart from. That’s because people need to make distinctions to be accurate. A liar will avoid these types of distinctions because it requires more brain power to keep track of them. This is different from when a liar uses convoluted wording and sentences that are full of insignificant detail and non sequiturs.

So how do you tell an innocent party from the guilty one? It’s certainly not easy, but knowing why people use certain phrases helps. Lieberman starts with two basic principles. First, he says, an innocent person typically wants a free exchange of information. The more conversation an innocent person has, the happier they are. The guilty person wants to end the conversation as quickly as possible — they’re thrilled when the interrogation ends and become frustrated if they’re asked more questions. In contrast, an innocent person is happy to take questions, circle back on a topic and clarify any inconsistencies.

The fact is that people who are lying do [fidget and avoid eye contact],” he says. “The challenge, of course, is that the people who are anxious and nervous also do. So, we need a mechanism, a means of filtering out and distinguishing between a person who’s just simply nervous and anxious and somebody who is not.

Second, an innocent person wants competency and consistency from the person who’s grilling them. A harried, disheveled and disorganized interviewer will likely frustrate someone who’s innocent but will delight a guilty person who might think this is their lucky day. “You don’t have to manufacture these scenarios, but being aware how they organically manifest becomes glaringly obvious when you see whether or not this person wants an exchange of information,” says Lieberman.

Or you may want to introduce what Lieberman calls an “emotional stressor.” This involves making a statement and/or asking a question about a suspicious event that doesn’t accuse the person but alludes to their involvement. In his book “Mind Reader,” Lieberman uses the example of a driver suspected of drinking on the job who’s asked for his advice on a colleague at another terminal who might have been drunk. An uncomfortable reaction might indicate guilt while an innocent person will likely freely provide some advice.

The way a person responds to accusations also provides clues to whether they’re guilty or innocent of a crime. “A clear denial is what you want to hear,” says Lieberman. “‘Did you rob the bank?’ Response: ‘No, I didn’t rob the bank.’ Watch out for denials like, ‘I wouldn’t do something like that. My reputation is sterling.’ A person who deflects rather than outright denies is suspect.”

Other clues can be found in what Lieberman calls “embedded bumps.” These are difficulties or disruptions that someone recalls as they go throughout their day and are typically lacking when someone is fabricating a story. “A real story will have things that went wrong or didn’t happen. For example, ‘I burned the popcorn, so I took it out and I lost half of it,’” says Lieberman. “That layer of thought is very hard for somebody who is lying.”

For much the same reason, descriptions of smells and touch, or just the use of multiple senses in relating an event, might also suggest someone is telling the truth. “To include a tactile or olfactory description, such as ‘the cologne reeked’ is not something that somebody who is lying to get their story straight will do,” says Lieberman. “They will tend to focus on what happened rather than encompassing other senses.”ness that I don’t think we can do in real time consistently. It requires a lot of mental energy. Thirty seconds and you are just drained.”

Interrogation tips

Here are a few more of Lieberman’s tips for fraud examiners who might be interrogating a suspect and want to create that emotional bridge that ultimately leads to a confession.

Establish credibility: Introduce yourself and explain how you work and your methods. “You want to be completely transparent,” says Lieberman.

Smile: Flashing a genuine smile not only relaxes the interviewer, but also builds rapport with the subject and shows confidence. “A person who is confident can smile because smiling is vulnerable, and vulnerable people are confident,” he says.

Avoid language that implies wrongdoing: Using words like “embezzlement,” “lying” and “confession” only pits you against the suspect by upending the positive narrative they have created for themselves. “We all have a version of events and a way of seeing ourselves,” says Lieberman. “You are not going to be effective in getting a confession from anyone if you blow up their narrative. No one wants to see themselves as a bad guy. Even a bad guy wants to see themselves as a good guy who did something bad.”

Shut down denials: Interviewers should quickly shut down any denials, but avoid getting into a shouting match, which will only make the suspect dig in their heels and be uncooperative. Instead, interviewers should take a less verbal approach, much like a parent or teacher does when they raise their hand or eyebrow to get a child’s attention. “The less you say, the more power you have,” says Lieberman. “When you are getting a denial, don’t shout over the person. Hold up your hand and repeat the phrase ‘I am sorry. I am sorry. I want to help you.’ Nonverbals are the best way to shut down denials.”

Distort the timeline of the crime: Lieberman points out that if a father is told to come home quickly because the police caught his 15-year-old son joyriding in the family car, he’ll likely be angry. But if the son tells the father what he did 10 years later, the news has less of a sting. A similar psychological shift occurs if an interviewer tells the suspect that they’ve long known about the crime. This way the crime seems less immediate, and it heightens the credibility of the interviewer, says Lieberman. The interviewer should then state two facts they know are true about the event. “Whenever you state two things that are true in a row, we are primed to accept what follows as being honest as well,” he says. Follow that with easy yes or no questions about the crime, and with any luck the accused will confirm their involvement.

Alibi buster: How do you check out whether a suspect’s story is true? You might want to try what Lieberman calls the “ultimate alibi buster.” This is done by going over a suspect’s statement and checking facts that you know are true and then inserting a question about a plausible fact that’s false. “I might say, ‘There was a big water main break, and traffic was backed up for hours. You must have been sitting in traffic for hours?’ Now the suspect has a problem, right? They will do the one thing that every liar does and that is hesitate. As soon as they hesitate, it is all over.”

Finding a balance

How does all this knowledge affect Lieberman’s interactions with people? “It becomes like another sense, so you pick it up and go about your day,” he says.

“I always tell people when they start learning this, you can’t hold somebody accountable for their thoughts, particularly as you don’t know if you are getting it right. Everyone is entitled to their privacy, even though it is very tempting sometimes to zero in. You learn to let things go.”

Paul Kilby, CFE, is editor-in-chief of Fraud Magazine. Contact him at pkilby@ACFE.com.

Brain drain

Because telling lies does require much more mental energy than recalling the truth, liars often use tricks to tell tales in a way that they avoid the need for deep thought and reflection, says David Lieberman, Ph.D., a psychotherapist and an expert in the field of human behavior. In his book “Mind Reader,” Lieberman says be aware of the following signs that this might be happening.

Pontificating and philosophizing: Unless someone is confessing, any statement that expounds a sense of fairness or justice can be problematic. Watch for phrases like, “It shouldn’t be this way” or “This is not the country I remember.” This type of pontificating is a sign that the person is unconsciously seeking an internal justification for what they’ve done and a way to present themselves as a moral or good person.

Self-referral statements: This is when a person refers back to what they said or wrote with phrases like, “As I previously mentioned” and “As I explained earlier.” Because it takes more brain power to lie, this is a way to avoid giving incorrect information. Liars are more likely to repeat these kinds of phrases to keep their stories straight and reduce what Lieberman calls the “cognitive load.”

The complexity of simplicity: Honest statements typically involve more complex sentence structures, with phrases such as except, without, but or apart from. That’s because people need to make distinctions to be accurate. A liar will avoid these types of distinctions because it requires more brain power to keep track of them. This is different from when a liar uses convoluted wording and sentences that are full of insignificant detail and non sequiturs.

So how do you tell an innocent party from the guilty one? It’s certainly not easy, but knowing why people use certain phrases helps. Lieberman starts with two basic principles. First, he says, an innocent person typically wants a free exchange of information. The more conversation an innocent person has, the happier they are. The guilty person wants to end the conversation as quickly as possible — they’re thrilled when the interrogation ends and become frustrated if they’re asked more questions. In contrast, an innocent person is happy to take questions, circle back on a topic and clarify any inconsistencies.

Second, an innocent person wants competency and consistency from the person who’s grilling them. A harried, disheveled and disorganized interviewer will likely frustrate someone who’s innocent but will delight a guilty person who might think this is their lucky day. “You don’t have to manufacture these scenarios, but being aware how they organically manifest becomes glaringly obvious when you see whether or not this person wants an exchange of information,” says Lieberman.

Or you may want to introduce what Lieberman calls an “emotional stressor.” This involves making a statement and/or asking a question about a suspicious event that doesn’t accuse the person but alludes to their involvement. In his book “Mind Reader,” Lieberman uses the example of a driver suspected of drinking on the job who’s asked for his advice on a colleague at another terminal who might have been drunk. An uncomfortable reaction might indicate guilt while an innocent person will likely freely provide some advice.

The way a person responds to accusations also provides clues to whether they’re guilty or innocent of a crime. “A clear denial is what you want to hear,” says Lieberman. “‘Did you rob the bank?’ Response: ‘No, I didn’t rob the bank.’ Watch out for denials like, ‘I wouldn’t do something like that. My reputation is sterling.’ A person who deflects rather than outright denies is suspect.”

Other clues can be found in what Lieberman calls “embedded bumps.” These are difficulties or disruptions that someone recalls as they go throughout their day and are typically lacking when someone is fabricating a story. “A real story will have things that went wrong or didn’t happen. For example, ‘I burned the popcorn, so I took it out and I lost half of it,’” says Lieberman. “That layer of thought is very hard for somebody who is lying.”

For much the same reason, descriptions of smells and touch, or just the use of multiple senses in relating an event, might also suggest someone is telling the truth. “To include a tactile or olfactory description, such as ‘the cologne reeked’ is not something that somebody who is lying to get their story straight will do,” says Lieberman. “They will tend to focus on what happened rather than encompassing other senses.”