In general, people are not so good at detecting deception. The average person trusts, they observe, in the signs of a liar as nervous behaviors, but liars actually show fewer nonverbal cues that would mean they do not mean what they say. It is also possible, the Dutch researchers suggest, that people make no mistake about their assumptions about liars, but instead, the behavioral cues that suggest someone is lying are simply not so strong. Stel and van Dijk tested the hypothesis that facial expressions that signify emotions could provide a more reliable set of cues than liar behaviors.
The literature on the detection of deceptive emotions, as Stel and van Dijk point out, is complicated by the fact that we judge true smiles vs. Postures is not the same as determining whether a person who smiles is lying or not. When a salesperson waits for you and offers help with a broad smile, you probably do not consider whether this smile is genuine. You expect to be treated in a friendly way, and even if the person is acting, you really do not care.
Negative emotional expressions present a different challenge because liars are not really that good at looking intentionally angry, unhappy or fearful.
Stel and van Dijk believe that observers could prove to be accurate in distinguishing between the emotional expressions of liars and those who tell the truth if they are given the correct instructions. Instead of asking people to say if someone is lying or not, it would be better to ask them to rate the degree to which that person is feeling the emotion supposedly displayed on their face. Their study compared these two approaches with detection deception, believing that the indirect measure in which participants rated the extent of an emotion would provide more precision than just asking participants to say whether the person they qualify is lying or not.
In the first of two studies, the undergraduate students watched videos of faces of people who were lying or telling the truth, watching these without any audio. The videos were created by asking the "actors" to lie or tell the truth about how they felt after having seen a movie fragment of "Jungle Book" (positive emotions) or "Sophie's Choice" (negative emotions). Then, the participants who watched the videos offered direct ratings of lies, telling the truth and indirect ratings of the degree to which the person felt the emotion represented. As predicted, the participants were unable to provide accurate categorical judgments. When trying to assess the scope of the emotion portrayed, the participants were more accurate in describing negative emotional faces than positive ones.
The second study involved a larger number of participants, more video clips and a wider set of emotional scores of the faces recorded on video. The scale of negative emotions included elements that the authors believed would be relevant to the deception, such as penance, repentance, guilt, sadness, anger and worry. These findings confirmed those of the first study, showing that participants could not tell if the people in the videos were lying or not, but could qualify if the people in the videos felt bad or not.
By taking this effect into account, the authors return to the idea that perhaps people are simply not so good at transmitting a lie when it comes to a negative emotion. It is also possible, however, for observers to change their focus when evaluating the emotions of someone who looks sad, angry, hurt, or repentant. It is well known that people are better at making cognitive judgments when they are in a bad mood. Remember more details, for example, of an important sports match when your team loses than when they win. When you see someone who looks sad, an emotional contagion sets in and you feel bad too. At that point, you can better judge the nuances of what someone seems to be feeling. Good moods make you more global and, therefore, less accurate in your judgments.
How can you use the findings of this study to your advantage when you are in a situation of trying to infer if someone is telling the truth? Start by not asking yourself if the person is lying or not. You will most likely come to an incorrect conclusion with this direct approach. Instead, take a step back and see if you can gather what emotions the person you are judging really experiences. Although in the Dutch study, the videos did not include verbal narrations, you are actually making judgments of people based on vocal and visual clues. Compare the emotion you think the person feels with the person's words. When the person who hurts you expresses remorse, is that the emotion that also comes to mind?
In conclusion, it is difficult to become an expert to detect deception. However, by asking a series of questions different from whether the person is lying or not, your judgments may seem surprisingly close to the truth.
I hope it serves you a lot. A few small tips always make a difference.
