repost: 如何輕易地拆穿一個謊言 The best (and worst) ways to spot a liar

Written by Frank M. Lin 4/16/2017 6:06 am @ Arcadia, California – Chilling in Arcadia this weekend to play with my cousin’s kids again.  They are too much fun.  English version of this article is below the Chinese version just scroll down.


 

Source: http://www.bbc.com/ukchina/trad/vert_fut/2015/09/150914_vert_fut_best-and-worst-ways-to-spot-a-liar.shtml?ocid=socialflow_facebook

如何輕易地拆穿一個謊言 The best (and worst) ways to spot a liar

By 大衛·羅伯森(David Robson)

2015年9月14日

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption眼神並不一定能識別騙子。

托馬斯·奧默羅德(Thomas Ormerod)的保安團隊面對的是一個看起來似乎不可能完成的任務。在歐洲各地機場,他們要詢問旅客的乘機歷史和旅行計劃。奧默羅德在普通旅客中安插了一些人,他們會對保安說謊,編造自己的過去和未來——而他的保安團隊則要識別出哪些人在說謊。而實際上,他們採訪的人當中只有千分之一人撒了謊。辨別他們的難度猶如海底撈針。

那麼,他們該怎麼辦?一種方法是關注肢體語言或眼球的運動,對吧?但這可能是個餿主意。不斷有研究發現,即使是訓練有素的警察,想從肢體語言和麵部表情來判斷一個人有沒有撒謊,通常不會比碰運氣更加凖確。有一項研究表明,20000人中只有50人的正確判斷率高於80%。大多數人的判斷結果和瞎猜無異。

奧默羅德的團隊嘗試了其他的方法——並在絕大多數情況下成功鎖定了撒謊的乘客。他們的秘訣是什麼呢?團隊拋棄了人們常用的騙術識別技巧,而採用了全新的更直接的技巧。

在過去的幾年,謊言識別研究一直未取得很大的成果。之前的大多數研究都集中在通過騙子的肢體語言或面部表情,比如臉頰發紅,不安的笑,遊離的眼神等等來判斷其動機。最有名的例子是比爾·克林頓在否認他與莫妮卡·萊溫斯基的緋聞時摸了鼻子——這個動作在當時被認為是他撒謊的明顯標誌。伯明翰阿拉巴馬大學(University of Alabama in Birmingham)的提姆西·列文(Timothy Levine)說,這背後的理論是人撒謊時會激發強烈的情緒,比如緊張、內疚、甚至因說謊而產生的興奮感,這類情緒往往難以抑制。即便我們天生一副撲克臉,我們臉部的細微動作,即所謂的「微表情」,還是會出賣我們。

Image copyrightGETTY
Image caption要是肢體語言能夠拆穿謊言就好了。

然而,心理學家的研究越是深入,他們就發現曾經認為可靠的線索變的越來越難以捕捉。問題出在人類行為存在巨大的多樣性。如果你夠熟悉一個人,那麼你就有可能發現他們說真話時的特點,但其他人的行為動作可能大相徑庭;並沒有一種通用的肢體語言。「人們撒謊時的行為並不一致,」薩塞克斯大學(University of Sussex)的奧默羅德說,「我說謊時會緊張地咯咯笑,而有的人會變得比平時嚴肅,有的人會進行眼神交流,而有的人則避免眼神交流。」列文也持相同看法:「證據非常清楚,我們沒有任何可以區分真話和謊話的可靠標誌。」他說。

顯然,我們需要一種新的方法。但是,既然實驗室中的研究沒有進展,還能有什麼方法呢?奧默羅德的答案驚人地簡單:不再關注微表情,而是注意說話者的措辭,悄悄地摸索正確的施壓點,然後讓撒謊者無地自容。

奧默羅德和他在伍爾弗漢普頓大學(University of Wolverhampton)的同行科拉·丹多(Coral Dando)發現了一些有助於提高拆穿謊言概率的對話原則:

開放式提問。這會逼迫撒謊者詳細講述自己的故事,直到掉進他們自己營造的謊言迷宮裏。

問一些猝不及防的問題。調查者應試圖增加說謊者的「認知負擔」——比如問一些他們想不到的、又有些難懂的問題,或者讓他們倒敘一件事——這些問題將加大說謊者自圓其說的難度。

注意細小的、可驗證的細節。如果有乘客自稱在牛津大學工作,讓他們敘述一下上班的路線。如果你在他的話裏發現前後矛盾的地方,先不要點破——最好是讓撒謊者建立起自信,在敘述中留下更多的漏洞,而不要急於糾正他們。

觀察信心的變化。仔細觀察說謊者在遇到質疑時說話風格會作出怎樣的改變:如果撒謊者感到自己仍然掌控著對話主動權,他們會滔滔不絕,但是人的心理舒適區是有限的,一旦他們覺得自己要失去對局面的控制時,他們就會沉默不語。

此舉的目的不是進行一場緊張的盤問,而是一場輕鬆的對話。不過,稍微施加壓力後,撒謊者就會自相矛盾,或者閃爍其詞反覆無常。「重要的一點是沒有神奇的辨別謊言的方法;我們只是博採眾長,將其發展成一種認知方法。」 奧默羅德說。

奧默羅德坦言,他的策略聽起來像是常識。但是,事實勝於雄辯。該團隊為假乘客編造了逼真的機票和旅行相關文件。他們有一周時間來凖備自己的故事,然後去歐洲各地機場混在普通乘客中間排隊。接受過奧默羅德和丹多盤問技巧培訓的安保人員揪出騙子乘客的概率比觀察可疑跡象的人高20倍,他們的識別率高達70%。

「實驗結果讓人驚嘆,」沒有參加這項研究的列文說。他認為尤其重要的一點是這項實驗是在真實的機場裏進行的。「這是目前最真實的研究。」

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption在機場進行的一場心理學實驗發現了拆穿謊言的新方法。

勸說術

列文自己的實驗也被證明具有類似效果。和奧默羅德一樣,他認為通過設計聰明的對話來找出撒謊者編的故事中的漏洞要比通過肢體語言的破綻來拆穿謊言更有效。最近,他設計了一個小遊戲,本科生兩兩一組,答對一題得5美元。這些學生所不知道的是,他們的搭檔都是演員。當遊戲的主人離開房間時,演員會建議作弊,快速地偷看答案。一些學生接受了這個建議。

然後,由真正的聯邦探員來詢問這些學生他們是否作弊了。他們通過各種提問技巧來測試學生的說法,而不是關注肢體語言或其他說謊標誌。最後,他們找到了超過90%的作弊學生;其中一位專家甚至在33次盤問中取得了100%的正確率,該結果遠高於肢體語言分析的凖確率。重要的是,隨後的一項研究請新手來做測試,也達到了近80%的凖確率,他們只是用了開放式問題,比如問他們的搭檔會怎樣敘述這件事。

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption警察是否就比普通人更加擅長識別嫌疑犯的謊言?

的確,撒謊者常常會公開承認他們撒了謊。「專家很善於做這事,」列文說。他們的秘訣是所有勸說術大師都知道的簡單方法:對話開始就開門見山的直接問學生有多誠實。只要讓他們說他們說的是真話,就會讓他們不自覺地變得更加誠實。「人總是希望他人認為自己是誠實的,這就讓他們變得願意配合談話,」列文說,「甚至原本不誠實的人,在說了這句話以後,也感到很難假裝配合,所以大多數情況下,我們都能找出撒謊者。」

顯然,這些技巧可能早已為一些專家型偵探所知,但是鑒於肢體語言的神話,與這種可疑的科學相比,勸說術的力量值得我們的重視。儘管奧默羅德和列文已經獲得成功,他們仍期待其他人嘗試重覆、擴展實驗,確保他們的結論在不同的情況下都能站得住腳。「我們應該關注全面的結論。」列文說。

雖然這些技巧主要幫助執法部門,但是它也有助於你識別你生活圈子裏的說謊者。「我總是用它來對付小孩,」 奧默羅德說。請記住重點在於保持開放的思維,不要過早下結論:不要僅僅因為那個人看起來有點緊張,或努力回憶某個關鍵細節,就認定他撒了謊。相反,你應該尋找的是更多的相互矛盾之處。

沒有一種方法能百分百識破謊言,但是只要用一點小技巧,開動腦筋,學會勸說,你就有希望讓真相水落石出。

請訪問 BBC Future閱讀 英文原文

(責編:路西)


 

Source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150906-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-spot-a-liar

The best (and worst) ways to spot a liar

Forget body language or eye movements. There are much better ways to identify the deceitful.

This story is part of BBC Future’s “Best of 2015” list, our greatest hits of the year. Browse the full list.

Thomas Ormerod’s team of security officers faced a seemingly impossible task. At airports across Europe, they were asked to interview passengers on their history and travel plans. Ormerod had planted a handful of people arriving at security with a false history, and a made-up future – and his team had to guess who they were. In fact, just one in 1000 of the people they interviewed would be deceiving them. Identifying the liar should have been about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack.

Using previous methods of lie detection, you might as well just flip a coin

So, what did they do? One option would be to focus on body language or eye movements, right? It would have been a bad idea. Study after study has found that attempts – even by trained police officers – to read lies from body language and facial expressions are more often little better than chance. According to one study, just 50 out of 20,000 people managed to make a correct judgement with more than 80% accuracy. Most people might as well just flip a coin.

Ormerod’s team tried something different – and managed to identify the fake passengers in the vast majority of cases. Their secret? To throw away many of the accepted cues to deception and start anew with some startlingly straightforward techniques.

When it comes to spotting liars, the eyes don't have it (Credit: Thinkstock)

When it comes to spotting liars, the eyes don’t have it (Credit: Thinkstock)

Over the last few years, deception research has been plagued by disappointing results. Most previous work had focused on reading a liar’s intentions via their body language or from their face – blushing cheeks, a nervous laugh, darting eyes. The most famous example is Bill Clinton touching his nose when he denied his affair with Monica Lewinsky – taken at the time to be a sure sign he was lying. The idea, says Timothy Levine at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, was that the act of lying provokes some strong emotions – nerves, guilt, perhaps even exhilaration at the challenge – that are difficult to contain. Even if we think we have a poker face, we might still give away tiny flickers of movement known as “micro-expressions” that might give the game away, they claimed.

The problem is the huge variety of human behaviour – there is no universal dictionary of body language

Yet the more psychologists looked, the more elusive any reliable cues appeared to be. The problem is the huge variety of human behaviour. With familiarity, you might be able to spot someone’s tics whenever they are telling the truth, but others will probably act very differently; there is no universal dictionary of body language. “There are no consistent signs that always arise alongside deception,” says Ormerod, who is based at the University of Sussex. “I giggle nervously, others become more serious, some make eye contact, some avoid it.” Levine agrees: “The evidence is pretty clear that there aren’t any reliable cues that distinguish truth and lies,” he says. And although you may hear that our subconscious can spot these signs even if they seem to escape our awareness, this too seems to have been disproved.

Despite these damning results, our safety often still hinges on the existence of these mythical cues. Consider the screening some passengers might face before a long-haul flight – a process Ormerod was asked to investigate in the run up to the 2012 Olympics. Typically, he says, officers will use a “yes/no” questionnaire about the flyer’s intentions, and they are trained to observe “suspicious signs” (such as nervous body language) that might betray deception. “It doesn’t give a chance to listen to what they say, and think about credibility, observe behaviour change – they are the critical aspects of deception detection,” he says. The existing protocols are also prone to bias, he says – officers were more likely to find suspicious signs in certain ethnic groups, for instance. “The current method actually prevents deception detection,” he says.

If only body language revealed deception (Credit: Getty Images)

If only body language revealed deception (Credit: Getty Images)

Clearly, a new method is needed. But given some of the dismal results from the lab, what should it be? Ormerod’s answer was disarmingly simple: shift the focus away from the subtle mannerisms to the words people are actually saying, gently probing the right pressure points to make the liar’s front crumble.

Ormerod and his colleague Coral Dando at the University of Wolverhampton identified a series of conversational principles that should increase your chances of uncovering deceit:

Use open questions. This forces the liar to expand on their tale until they become entrapped in their own web of deceit.

Employ the element of surprise. Investigators should try to increase the liar’s “cognitive load” – such as by asking them unanticipated questions that might be slightly confusing, or asking them to report an event backwards in time – techniques that make it harder for them to maintain their façade.

Watch for small, verifiable details. If a passenger says they are at the University of Oxford, ask them to tell you about their journey to work. If you do find a contradiction, though, don’t give yourself away – it’s better to allow the liar’s confidence to build as they rattle off more falsehoods, rather than correcting them.

Liar vs liar

It takes one to know one

Ironically, liars turn out to be better lie detectors. Geoffrey Bird at University College London and colleagues recently set up a game in which subjects had to reveal true or false statements about themselves. They were also asked to judge each other’s credibility. It turned out that people who were better at telling fibs could also detect others’ tall tales, perhaps because they recognised the tricks.

Observe changes in confidence. Watch carefully to see how a potential liar’s style changes when they are challenged: a liar may be just as verbose when they feel in charge of a conversation, but their comfort zone is limited and they may clam up if they feel like they are losing control.

The aim is a casual conversation rather than an intense interrogation. Under this gentle pressure, however, the liar will give themselves away by contradicting their own story, or by becoming obviously evasive or erratic in their responses. “The important thing is that there is no magic silver bullet; we are taking the best things and putting them together for a cognitive approach,” says Ormerod.

(Credit: Thinkstock)

A psychological experiment in an airport revealed new tricks to spot liars (Credit: Thinkstock)

Ormerod openly admits his strategy might sound like common sense. “A friend said that you are trying to patent the art of conversation,” he says. But the results speak for themselves. The team prepared a handful of fake passengers, with realistic tickets and travel documents. They were given a week to prepare their story, and were then asked to line up with other, genuine passengers at airports across Europe. Officers trained in Ormerod and Dando’s interviewing technique were more than 20 times more likely to detect these fake passengers than people using the suspicious signs, finding them 70% of the time.

“It’s really impressive,” says Levine, who was not involved in this study. He thinks it is particularly important that they conducted the experiment in real airports. “It’s the most realistic study around.”

The art of persuasion

Levine’s own experiments have proven similarly powerful. Like Ormerod, he believes that clever interviews designed to reveal holes in a liar’s story are far better than trying to identify tell-tale signs in body language. He recently set up a trivia game, in which undergraduates played in pairs for a cash prize of $5 for each correct answer they gave. Unknown to the students, their partners were actors, and when the game master temporarily left the room, the actor would suggest that they quickly peek at the answers to cheat on the game. A handful of the students took him up on the offer.

One expert was even correct 100% of the time, across 33 interviews

Afterwards, the students were all questioned by real federal agents about whether or not they had cheated. Using tactical questions to probe their stories – without focusing on body language or other cues – they managed to find the cheaters with more than 90% accuracy; one expert was even correct 100% of the time, across 33 interviews – a staggering result that towers above the accuracy of body language analyses. Importantly, a follow-up study found that even novices managed to achieve nearly 80% accuracy, simply by using the right, open-ended questions that asked, for instance, how their partner would tell the story.

Are police any better at spotting lying suspects than anyone else? (Credit: Thinkstock)

Are police any better at spotting lying suspects than anyone else? (Credit: Thinkstock)

Indeed, often the investigators persuaded the cheaters to openly admit their misdeed. “The experts were fabulously good at this,” says Levine. Their secret was a simple trick known to masters in the art of persuasion: they would open the conversation by asking the students how honest they were. Simply getting them to say they told the truth primed them to be more candid later. “People want to think of being honest, and this ties them into being cooperative,” says Levine. “Even the people who weren’t honest had difficulty pretending to be cooperative [after this], so for the most part you could see who was faking it.”

Another trick is to ask people how honest they are

Clearly, such tricks may already be used by some expert detectives – but given the folklore surrounding body language, it’s worth emphasising just how powerful persuasion can be compared to the dubious science of body language. Despite their successes, Ormerod and Levine are both keen that others attempt to replicate and expand on their findings, to make sure that they stand up in different situations. “We should watch out for big sweeping claims,” says Levine.

Although the techniques will primarily help law enforcement, the same principles might just help you hunt out the liars in your own life. “I do it with kids all the time,” Ormerod says. The main thing to remember is to keep an open mind and not to jump to early conclusions: just because someone looks nervous, or struggles to remember a crucial detail, does not mean they are guilty. Instead, you should be looking for more general inconsistencies.

There is no fool-proof form of lie detection, but using a little tact, intelligence, and persuasion, you can hope that eventually, the truth will out.

Advertisements

About GhettoRacer

racer, driver coach, taoist, yogi, dreamweaver, bballer, rebel, philosopher, entrepreneur, kiva, lonewolf, vagabond, photo/video shooter, storyteller
This entry was posted in Chinese, East/West/translations, 高價值優秀文章, Life/Musings, Politics/Societies/World stuff, PSA - public service announcements, Repost, Uncategorized/Unsorted and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s