5 ms·

Lie Detection by Strategy Manipulation

38 points by cwwc 6y ago

cwwc 6y ago
''Essentially, the AIM method involves informing suspects of these facts. Specifically, interviewers make it clear to interviewers that if they provide longer, more detailed statements about the event of interest, then the investigator will be better able to detect if they are telling the truth or lying. For truth-tellers, this is good news. For liars, this is less good news. Indeed, research shows that when suspects are provided with these instructions, they behave differently depending on whether they are telling the truth or not. Truth-tellers typically seek to demonstrate their innocence and commonly provide more detailed information in response to such instructions. In contrast, liars wish to conceal their guilt. This means they are more likely to strategically withhold information in response to the AIM instructions. Their (totally correct) assumption here is that providing more information will make it easier for the investigator to detect their lie, so instead, they provide less information.' ...... This asymmetry in responses from liars and truth-tellers - from which the AIM technique derives its name - suggests two conclusions. When using the AIM instructions, if the investigator is presented with a potential suspect who is providing lots of detailed information, they are likely to be telling the truth. In contrast, if the potential suspect is lying then the investigator would typically be presented with shorter statements.''
- cwwc 6y ago
  ''We found that when the AIM technique was used, it was easier for the interviewer to spot liars. In fact, lie-detection accuracy rates increased from 48% (no AIM) to 81% – with truth-tellers providing more information.''
- kybernetikos 6y ago
  Isn't this only going to be the case for liars who haven't read this research?
ajuc 6y ago
> Ideally, interview protocols to improve lie-detection should (a) encourage forthcoming verbal strategies from truth tellers and (b) encourage withholding verbal strategies from liars. I'm not sure this is always true. I've been playing A LOT of card game named Cheat, it's basically training how to lie and how to detect lying better. The game is about losing all your cards placing 1 or 3+ of them at once on the stack, but they have to match the previously announced card by suit or color (and then suit has to be adjacent - like 3 of spades matches 4 of spades but not 5 of spades). You place them backs-up and have to announce what they are (you only announce the part that matches - like "three aces") and you're allowed to cheat (putting more cards than you said or placing other cards than you said you did) but if someone checks you immediately after your turn - either he or you take all the cards from the stack depending on who was right. There are lots of other variants but that was what we found the most interesting. It's a very good simulator of lying because there is hidden information and people might be able to tell when you lie (if you announce three aces and somebody has two for example). But then people can also ask around if others have aces to check you. But other people might lie to make them take cards. There's lots of strategies including pretending to lie and pretending to pretend to lie etc. It goes many levels deep. Simple strategies like "provide many details to show you don't lie" or "provide few details to pretend you lie" usually lose to more sophisticated ones.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Keep in mind that this is a game designed for fun not realism. There is no prize for tricking the police into arresting you.
  - ajuc 6y ago
    Yeah that's the biggest difference. Among Us (or Mafia game on which it was based) is closer probably. But still there are smaller scenarios that can play out in Cheat where the situation is close (you have 2 players providing contradicting information and you try to guess who's right). Anyway my intuition about detecting liers is - people who provide too much or too personal details without being asked about them are more suspicious than the default, not less. There's a few proverbs in my language about that ("only the guilty explains himself" and "hit the table and the scissors will speak out") - the first one obviously stupid on the face value but I think it is supposed to mean the same thing - that the guilty will have more explanations ready faster because they thought about them more and focus more on being considered innocent. Maybe that's why the "explain to them" part is important.
throwaway2245 6y ago
This research reminded me of this scene from the film Uncle Buck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CrPAl1aDzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CrPAl1aDzM Buck: Did you brush your teeth? Miles: Yeah. You can even feel my toothbrush. Buck: You know, I have a friend who works at the crime lab at the police station. I could give him your toothbrush and he could run a test on it... to see if you actually brushed your teeth... or just ran your toothbrush under the faucet. [Buck leaves, as Miles gawks] Maizy: If that's true, we're gonna REALLY have to start brushing our teeth.
thazework 6y ago
Research presented by the author here (no paywall): https://theconversation.com/spotting-liars-is-hard-but-our-new-method-is-effective-and-ethical-151035 https://theconversation.com/spotting-liars-is-hard-but-our-n...
- sampo 6y ago
  You can also read the original posted article at sci-hub.se.
withinboredom 6y ago
As someone who went to the US Army’s interrogation school over a decade ago. This checks out. I’d also add that a liar will also suck at creating a realistic and coherent timeline.
- mankyd 6y ago
  re:timeline, I've always heard that liars recall the story they're making up in order; truth tellers tell the most important and interesting bits first. I.E: 0) Sorry I'm late 1) I woke up 2) Got in the car 3) Traffic was really bad 4) I got in a car accident on the way here vs. 0) Sorry I'm late 1) I got in a car accident on the way here 2) Traffic was really bad Because liars are often making it up as they go, they tell stories chronologically, filling in the details as they go, unable to pre-recognize the interesting details. Obviously, its not always that cut and dry, but its a hint.

38 points by cwwc 6y ago

cwwc 6y ago

''Essentially, the AIM method involves informing suspects of these facts. Specifically, interviewers make it clear to interviewers that if they provide longer, more detailed statements about the event of interest, then the investigator will be better able to detect if they are telling the truth or lying. For truth-tellers, this is good news. For liars, this is less good news. Indeed, research shows that when suspects are provided with these instructions, they behave differently depending on whether they are telling the truth or not. Truth-tellers typically seek to demonstrate their innocence and commonly provide more detailed information in response to such instructions. In contrast, liars wish to conceal their guilt. This means they are more likely to strategically withhold information in response to the AIM instructions. Their (totally correct) assumption here is that providing more information will make it easier for the investigator to detect their lie, so instead, they provide less information.' ...... This asymmetry in responses from liars and truth-tellers - from which the AIM technique derives its name - suggests two conclusions. When using the AIM instructions, if the investigator is presented with a potential suspect who is providing lots of detailed information, they are likely to be telling the truth. In contrast, if the potential suspect is lying then the investigator would typically be presented with shorter statements.''

cwwc 6y ago
''We found that when the AIM technique was used, it was easier for the interviewer to spot liars. In fact, lie-detection accuracy rates increased from 48% (no AIM) to 81% – with truth-tellers providing more information.''
kybernetikos 6y ago
Isn't this only going to be the case for liars who haven't read this research?

ajuc 6y ago

> Ideally, interview protocols to improve lie-detection should (a) encourage forthcoming verbal strategies from truth tellers and (b) encourage withholding verbal strategies from liars. I'm not sure this is always true. I've been playing A LOT of card game named Cheat, it's basically training how to lie and how to detect lying better. The game is about losing all your cards placing 1 or 3+ of them at once on the stack, but they have to match the previously announced card by suit or color (and then suit has to be adjacent - like 3 of spades matches 4 of spades but not 5 of spades). You place them backs-up and have to announce what they are (you only announce the part that matches - like "three aces") and you're allowed to cheat (putting more cards than you said or placing other cards than you said you did) but if someone checks you immediately after your turn - either he or you take all the cards from the stack depending on who was right. There are lots of other variants but that was what we found the most interesting. It's a very good simulator of lying because there is hidden information and people might be able to tell when you lie (if you announce three aces and somebody has two for example). But then people can also ask around if others have aces to check you. But other people might lie to make them take cards. There's lots of strategies including pretending to lie and pretending to pretend to lie etc. It goes many levels deep. Simple strategies like "provide many details to show you don't lie" or "provide few details to pretend you lie" usually lose to more sophisticated ones.

im3w1l 6y ago
Keep in mind that this is a game designed for fun not realism. There is no prize for tricking the police into arresting you.
- ajuc 6y ago
  Yeah that's the biggest difference. Among Us (or Mafia game on which it was based) is closer probably. But still there are smaller scenarios that can play out in Cheat where the situation is close (you have 2 players providing contradicting information and you try to guess who's right). Anyway my intuition about detecting liers is - people who provide too much or too personal details without being asked about them are more suspicious than the default, not less. There's a few proverbs in my language about that ("only the guilty explains himself" and "hit the table and the scissors will speak out") - the first one obviously stupid on the face value but I think it is supposed to mean the same thing - that the guilty will have more explanations ready faster because they thought about them more and focus more on being considered innocent. Maybe that's why the "explain to them" part is important.

throwaway2245 6y ago

This research reminded me of this scene from the film Uncle Buck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CrPAl1aDzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CrPAl1aDzM Buck: Did you brush your teeth? Miles: Yeah. You can even feel my toothbrush. Buck: You know, I have a friend who works at the crime lab at the police station. I could give him your toothbrush and he could run a test on it... to see if you actually brushed your teeth... or just ran your toothbrush under the faucet. [Buck leaves, as Miles gawks] Maizy: If that's true, we're gonna REALLY have to start brushing our teeth.

thazework 6y ago

Research presented by the author here (no paywall): https://theconversation.com/spotting-liars-is-hard-but-our-new-method-is-effective-and-ethical-151035 https://theconversation.com/spotting-liars-is-hard-but-our-n...

sampo 6y ago
You can also read the original posted article at sci-hub.se.

withinboredom 6y ago

As someone who went to the US Army’s interrogation school over a decade ago. This checks out. I’d also add that a liar will also suck at creating a realistic and coherent timeline.

mankyd 6y ago
re:timeline, I've always heard that liars recall the story they're making up in order; truth tellers tell the most important and interesting bits first. I.E: 0) Sorry I'm late 1) I woke up 2) Got in the car 3) Traffic was really bad 4) I got in a car accident on the way here vs. 0) Sorry I'm late 1) I got in a car accident on the way here 2) Traffic was really bad Because liars are often making it up as they go, they tell stories chronologically, filling in the details as they go, unable to pre-recognize the interesting details. Obviously, its not always that cut and dry, but its a hint.