Plastic Detection Detection

Even during an experiment conducted more than 25 years ago, when I was a student, I learned that gestures also give out information about hidden feelings. At that time there was little scientific evidence on whether body movements are an exact reflection of a person’s emotions or character. Some psychotherapists thought so, but their statements were rejected by behaviorists, who dominated at that time in academic psychology, as nothing confirmed by jokes. Many studies conducted between 1914 and 1954 failed to confirm the assumption that non-verbal behavior provides accurate information about emotions and personality traits. Academic psychology was to some extent proud of the fact that scientific experiments exposed as a myth the philistine notions that emotions can be defined by a person or a body or information about a person’s character can be obtained. Those few sociologists or doctors who continued to write about gestures were placed on a par with people interested in extrasensory perception or graphology, that is, with naive, weak-minded people or charlatans.
I could not believe that this is so. During group psychotherapy sessions, I saw that I can say with complete confidence, guided only by gestures, who are upset about what. Then, with all the optimism of my youth, I decided to force academic psychology to change my opinion about nonverbal behavior. I came up with an experiment to demonstrate that stress changes plastic. The source of stress was our senior teacher, who agreed, adhering to the plan I had invented, to conduct a survey among my fellow students on a topic that worried us all then. The teacher asked beginner psychologists about what they were going to do, having completed the training, and everything that happened was filmed with a hidden camera. He had attacked those who preferred scientific work for trying to hide in the laboratory from their duty to help sick people who need them. He criticized those who were going to engage in psychotherapy, accusing him of trying to “make money” and evading his duty to seek funds from mental illness while doing scientific work. He also asked if the student had ever been treated by a psychotherapist. Those who said “yes” asked how they were going to help others if they themselves were sick. Those who never turned to psychotherapists for help attacked, arguing that they could not consult others if they had never consulted themselves. Not a single student was to emerge victorious from this situation. To exacerbate the situation, I asked the teacher to interrupt the students, not to give them the opportunity to respond to the end to none of his stinging remarks.
Students volunteered to take part in this difficult experiment to help me, my classmate. They knew that this experiment was carried out for scientific purposes and implies a stressful situation, but that was no easier for them. And it's not just in the experiment. The teacher who acted so unreasonably had enormous power over them. For them graduating from school, his grades were vital, and the enthusiasm of his recommendations could have influenced what work they could get. For several minutes, the students behaved completely helplessly. Unable to leave or defend themselves, seething from impotent rage, they were forced to keep silent or indiscriminately mumble something in response. I asked the teacher not to continue the execution for more than five minutes, after which he explained what he was doing and why, and to praise each student for having endured stress so well.
I watched the experiment through a mirrored window and directed the camera so as to keep a continuous shooting of exactly the gestures. I just could not believe my eyes when I saw the reaction to the first question. After the teacher’s third attack, one student showed him a finger!
Picture 1 She held her hand in this position for almost a full minute. However, she did not look furious, and the teacher behaved as if she had not seen anything. When the conversation ended, I rushed inside. Both of them said it was my invention. The girl admitted that she was angry, but denied that at least somehow expressed it. The teacher also thought that it probably seemed to me because, he said, he could not but notice the obscene gesture. After developing the film, I received evidence. This clause in the gesture (finger on) was evidence of an unconscious feeling. She knew that in anger, unconscious, there was only an expression of that feeling. She did not realize that she was showing a finger. The feelings that she intentionally tried to hide, made their way out.
Fifteen years later, I watched the same type of non-verbal information leakage, expressed in another gesture in a gesture, in an experiment with female students who tried to hide their reaction to naturalistic medical films. This time, the slip did not manifest itself in a finger, but in a shrug. One after another, the students betrayed their lies with a slight shrug of the shoulders when the presenter asked them: “Do you want to look further?” Or: “Would you show this film to a small child?”
A shrug and a finger are examples of actions that, in order to distinguish them from all other known gestures, are called emblems. Logos have a very specific meaning, known to everyone belonging to a particular cultural group. Everyone knows that the exposed middle finger means “I had you” or “shove yourself” and that shrug means “I don't know”, “I can’t do anything” or “what difference does it make?”. Most other gestures do not have such a specific meaning, and their meaning is unclear. Many gestures mean little without accompanying words. Emblems, unlike simple gestures, can be used instead of words or where words cannot be used. In the United States, about sixty emblems are commonly used today. (Its own emblematic dictionary exists for each country, and often for regional groups within the country.) Examples of other well-known emblems are: nod of the head - “yes” and horizontal movement of the head - “no”, hand movements - “go here” and “ hello / goodbye ”, finger on finger -“ be ashamed ”, putting your hand to your ear - please speak louder, raising your thumb -“ stop ”, etc. ^[74] .
Emblems are always shown intentionally. The man showing the logo knows exactly what he is doing. He made a conscious decision to convey a message. There are, however, exceptions. Just as there are reservations in speech, there are mistakes in body movements - these are emblems that give out information that a person tries to hide. It is possible to determine that the emblem is a slip, and not done intentionally, by two points. One of them - the action is not fully implemented, but only fragmentary. You can shrug your shoulders by raising both shoulders or turning your hands with your palms up, you can do it with facial expressions - raising the eyebrows while simultaneously lowering the eyelids and giving the mouth a horseshoe shape - or a combination of all these actions, sometimes also with the head tilted sideways. When an emblem is an unintentional information leak, only one element is usually shown, and even that is not complete. You can lift only one shoulder, and also not very high, or stick out your lower lip; or just slightly turn your hands palms up. The emblem with an exposed finger includes not only specially folded fingers, but also the ejection of the arm forward and upward, often several times. When the emblem with the exposed finger was not displayed intentionally, but only betrayed the fury suppressed by the student, the movement was not fully manifested, only the fingers worked.
The second sign that the emblem is a “reservation” rather than a deliberate act is that it is not performed in the usual position. Most of the emblems are displayed straight ahead, between the waist and the neck. The emblem shown in the usual position, it is impossible not to notice. With "reservations" the emblem is never performed in the usual position. When the student showed the teacher an obscene gesture, the finger was not put forward, but lay on his knee, outside the usual position. In an experiment with female nurses, the shrugs that showed their feeling of helplessness and the inability to hide their feelings looked like a slight twist of the hands that remain on their knees. If the emblem were executed entirely, and not fragmentary, the liar would have understood what was happening and would correct it. Of course, these moments (fragmentation and execution outside the usual position) make it difficult to notice the emblem and others. These traitorous emblems can be shown again and again, but usually neither the liar himself nor his victim notice them.
But there is no guarantee that the liar will make an emblematic reservation. Such hundred percent true signs of deception simply do not exist. So far not enough research has been done to assess the frequency of emblematic reservations committed by lying people. Communicating with a hostile teacher, they were demonstrated by two out of five students. Of the female nurses, when they had to lie, more than half did. I do not know why this form of information leakage manifests itself in some, while others do not ^[75] .
Although not every liar shows emblematic reservations, but when they happen, this is a completely reliable sign: Emblematic reservations can be trusted. They are genuine signs of unwittingly burst information. When interpreting them, the danger of being trapped by Brokau is less than when interpreting most of the signs of deception, the risk of making Othello’s error is also less. Some people always speak evasively, but few regularly make emblematic reservations. Speech mistakes can talk about stress, and stress is not necessarily associated with a lie. Emblems have very specific meanings (in this they are similar to words), so emblematic reservations are usually easier to interpret. If a person slips a message like “I had you,” or “I am infuriated,” or “I am not on purpose” or “over there” - any of which can be depicted by means of an emblem - there are no special problems with interpretation.
Which emblem will be involuntarily shown in the process of lying, which message leaks at the same time, depends on what exactly they want to hide. The students who participated in my experiment with a hostile teacher, hid anger and indignation, so the exposed finger and fist were emblematic reservations here. In the experiment with the educational film, the students of the medical college did not feel angry, but many felt that they didn’t hide their emotions well enough. A helpless shrug was an emblematic reservation. No adult should be taught the emblem dictionary. Everyone knows the emblems shown by representatives of their own culture. However, not everyone knows that the emblems can be performed involuntarily. If the verifiers are not on guard, they will miss emblematic reservations, hardly noticeable because they are performed outside the usual position and are fragmentary.
Illustration is another type of body movements that can be a sign of deception. Illustrations are often confused with emblems, but it is important to be able to distinguish them, because in the process of lying they are subject to opposite changes: if the number of emblematic reservations increases, the number of illustrations usually decreases.
This type of body movements is so named because it illustrates speech. There are many ways of illustrations: you can make a special emphasis on a word or phrase, just as it is stressed or underlined by a letter; one can trace the course of thought in the air with one's hand, as if conducting one’s speech; You can draw in the air with your hands or depict actions that repeat or reinforce the above. It is the hands that usually illustrate speech, although the movements of the eyebrows and eyelids are often also illustrations, as well as the whole body or upper part of the torso.
The attitude of society to the degree of decency of illustrations has changed over the past few centuries. There were times when the use of illustrations distinguished the upper classes, but there were also times when their use was considered a sign of unhappiness. The illustrations necessary for successful public speaking are usually described in oratorical books.
The very first study of illustrations was undertaken not to detect signs of deception, but as a challenge to some of the statements of Nazi sociologists. The results of this study can help the verifier avoid the mistakes caused by the non-recognition of national differences in the illustrations. In the 1930s, many articles appeared stating that illustrations were an innate thing, and that “lower races”, such as Jews or Gypsies, made many broad, sweeping illustrations, unlike “higher ones,” less gesticulatingly expansive Aryans. Nobody mentioned the brightest illustrations shown by the Italian allies of Germany! David Efron ^[76] , an Argentine Jew who studied at Columbia University under the anthropologist Franz Boas, studied illustrations of people living on the eastern edge of New York. He found that the illustrations of immigrants from Sicily were expressed in drawing pictures or depicting actions, while Jewish immigrants from Lithuania used illustrations that accentuate speech or follow the train of thought. However, their descendants, born in the United States and attending mixed schools, did not differ from each other in the use of illustrations. The children of Sicilians used the same illustrations as the children of Lithuanian Jews.
Efron demonstrated that the nature of the illustrations used by humans is not innate, but acquired. People of different cultures not only use different types of illustrations, but also with varying degrees of intensity; some of them illustrate very little, while others very much. Even within the same culture, individuals differ in the number of illustrations typical of them ^[77] .
So a lie does not only give out the number or type of illustrations. A sign of deception is the reduction in the number of illustrations compared to the usual manner of the speaker. We need more detailed explanations of the specific cases in which people resort to illustrations in order to avoid misinterpretation of the decline in the number of illustrations.
First, let's think about why people even resort to illustrations. Usually they are used to try to explain what is difficult to express in words. We found that people are much more willing to use illustrations, defining the word “zigzag” or explaining how to get to the post office, than defining the word “chair” or explaining their choice of profession. Illustrations are also used when a person cannot find the right word. It seems that snapping your fingers or trying to snatch something out of thin air help the person to find the right word, as if it is hovering over the interlocutors and can be caught with a flick of the wrist. Such searches for words, at least, inform the other person that the search is on and that the other person is not refusing to speak. Illustrations may also play the role of self-help, helping people connect words to more or less meaningful speech. People tend to illustrate more than usual when they are frantic, terrified, very agitated, upset, anxious, or enthusiastic.
Now consider the reasons why people illustrate less than usual and it will become clear exactly when such a decrease can be a sign of deception. The first reason is the lack of emotions that a person puts into words. People illustrate less than usual when the topic does not affect them in any way, when they are bored, uninteresting or in moments of deep sadness. People depicting care or enthusiasm may betray that they do not accompany their speech with an increased number of illustrations.
The illustration becomes smaller and when a person speaks hesitantly. If someone carefully weighs every word, pondering what he has said, he will not illustrate much. In the first or second speech, regardless of whether you are giving a lecture or advertising a product, there will be far fewer illustrations than later, when there is no need to spend a lot of energy on the search for words. The number of illustrations decreases always when spoken with caution. It may not have anything to do with cheating. A person can speak carefully when the stakes in the game are high enough: when he tries to make a first impression on the boss; answers the question for which you can get a prize; for the first time appeals to a person whom he had previously passionately admired from a distance, etc. The contradictory feelings also lead to the fact that people select words with caution. A proposal of a much more profitable job may seem timidly tempting to a timid person, but it will be intimidated by the risk associated with moving to a new place. Unable to make a decision, he will not know what to answer.
If the liar didn’t do his job well in advance, he would also have to be careful and carefully consider each word before uttering it. Liars with little experience, who have badly rehearsed their lies, who have failed to predict what and when they are asked, will definitely demonstrate a decrease in the number of illustrations. But even if the liar worked well and rehearsed his speech, the number of illustrations he could have reduced under the influence of emotions. Some emotions, especially fear, may interfere with the coherence of speech. The need to suppress a strong emotion, as a rule, distracts from the process of creating verbal constructions. It is not enough to cope with a strong emotion, we must also hide it; even a liar who is well prepared for his role is likely to experience difficulties in such a situation, and there will be fewer illustrations.
The female nurses in our experiment, who tried to hide the reactions that the film about amputations and burns caused them, illustrated less than those who watched a film about flowers and honestly described their feelings. This decrease in the number of illustrations occurred for at least two reasons: firstly, the students had no experience of lying of this kind, and they did not have time to prepare, and secondly, they had strong emotions: fear of exposure and disgust caused by the bloody the movie. Many other researchers also found that the person who is lying about the illustration is less obvious than the person who is telling the truth. But in their research, emotions practically did not work, and the “liars” were poorly prepared.
Introducing the concept of illustration, I emphasized how important it is to distinguish it from the emblem, because in the case of a lie, their manifestations vary in different ways: the number of emblematic reservations increases, and the number of illustrations decreases. The decisive distinction between emblems and illustrations is the accuracy of movements and meanings. For emblems, both are highly necessary: ​​not all movement is suitable; only a certain movement conveys the value with sufficient accuracy. Take at least the OK logo, in which the thumb is connected to the index finger. It can be shown only in one way. If you put your thumb on the middle or little finger, the meaning will not be completely clear. The meaning of the gesture is also very specific: OK - “good”, “order” ^[78] .
In the illustrations, however, more vague in themselves, on the contrary, a wide variety of movements can be used. Illustrations are not particularly significant if they are treated separately from words. If words are not heard, for illustrations alone, little can be understood from the conversation. Another thing, when a person shows the emblem. Another difference between emblems and illustrations is that although both are shown during a conversation, emblems can replace words in situations where people are silent or unable to speak. Illustrations, by definition, are found only in the process of speech, they do not replace speech and are not used by silent people.
Interpret illustrations need to be more careful than emblematic reservations. As already mentioned, the error Othello and the trap Brokau work in the case of illustrations and do not work in the case of emblematic reservations. If the verifier notes a decrease in the number of illustrations, he should check all other possible reasons for the thoroughness of the selection of words (besides lies). In emblematic reservations, ambiguity is less; the value that they convey is usually quite distinct, and it is easier for the verifier to interpret them. In addition, the verifier does not need to be familiar with the suspect in order to interpret the emblematic reservation. Such an action, even taken separately, has a certain meaning in itself. In the case of illustrations, it is impossible to judge any changes without having data for comparison, since different people show them differently.The interpretation of illustrations, like most other signs of deception, requires prior acquaintance. At first meetings it is very difficult to notice deception. And one of the few opportunities to do this gives emblematic reservations.
The reason why the following type of body movements, manipulations are explained here is the need to warn the verifier about the risk of interpreting them as signs of deception. We found that people trying to uncover a lie often mistaken a true person for a liar, because he demonstrates a lot of manipulation. Manipulation may mean that a person is upset, but this is not always the case. Although people think that the increased number of manipulations is a reliable sign of deception, this is not true. All movements that shake, massage, rub, hold, pinch, pick, scratch another part of the body or perform any other actions with it are referred to manipulations. The duration of manipulations can vary from a few moments to many minutes.Some of the brief manipulations outwardly have a definite purpose: straighten hair, clean the ear, scratch some part of the body. Other manipulations, especially those that last for a long time, seem to be absolutely aimless: they are twisting and unwinding hair, rubbing fingers, and tapping with foot. Usually, a hand is manipulated, and hair, ears, nose, or crotch are used as recipients. But the hand can also be a recipient, like any other part of the body. Manipulations can be limited to the face (they can be performed by resting the tongue on the cheek, slightly biting the lips) or by movements of one leg relative to the other. Part of the act of manipulation can be some items: a match, a pencil, a clip or a cigarette. Despite the fact that propriety prescribes not to do this in public, many people continue to manipulate people without noticing their own actions.And the point here is not that people are not aware of them. If someone sees that someone is watching one of his movements, he will immediately stop, make him less noticeable, or try to somehow disguise, cover up a passing gesture with another wider one. But even hiding manipulations with the help of such intricate techniques, people act not quite consciously. Manipulations are on the edge of consciousness. No amount of effort can help most people give up on them for a long time. People are used to manipulation. A person behaves much more decently as an observer than as a performer. He gives the opportunity to finish the manipulation, even when his interlocutor begins to manipulate in the middle of a conversation. Someone looks away while the manipulation is performed, and turns back only when it is finished.If the manipulation is expressed by one of those seemingly aimless actions, such as hair torsion going on indefinitely, then, of course, they don’t look sideways all the time, but simply don’t look at this movement at an emphasis. Such a polite inattention to manipulation is a too well-learned habit followed without thinking; rules of decency violate the one who observes the act of manipulation, and not the one who performs it. The observer is peeping. When two cars brake at a traffic light, decency is violated by the driver who allows himself to look into the other car, and not the one that at this moment vigorously clears the ear.Such a polite inattention to manipulation is a too well-learned habit followed without thinking; rules of decency violate the one who observes the act of manipulation, and not the one who performs it. The observer is peeping. When two cars brake at a traffic light, decency is violated by the driver who allows himself to look into the other car, and not the one that at this moment vigorously clears the ear.Such a polite inattention to manipulation is a too well-learned habit followed without thinking; rules of decency violate the one who observes the act of manipulation, and not the one who performs it. The observer is peeping. When two cars brake at a traffic light, decency is violated by the driver who allows himself to look into the other car, and not the one that at this moment vigorously clears the ear.
The researchers of this phenomenon, not excluding me, wondered about the reasons for the preferences of certain manipulations. Why does someone prefer to itch rather than picking something, pinching and not rubbing? And how can one explain the fact that one prefers to scratch the hand, the other - the ear, and the third - the nose? In part, such preferences can be explained by idiosyncrasy. Everyone has their own favorite manipulations, peculiar to him. One will twist the ring, the other - pick acne, the third - twist the mustache. Nobody tried to establish why people prefer this or that manipulation or why some do not have special idiosyncratic manipulations. There is information suggesting that some manipulations indicate discomfort. The habit of picking is found in psychiatric patients who hide their anger. Sick,those who are ashamed usually cover their eyes. However, these experimental data were obtained on the basis of the usual idea that discomfort increases the number of manipulations.^[79] .
It is usually believed that when people feel uncomfortable or nervous, they fidget and make restless movements, and this is quite well founded by science. Manipulations of scratching, squeezing, picking, hole cleaning and brushing become more intense as any kind of discomfort increases. I think that people demonstrate a lot of manipulations in a relaxed state, being liberated and no longer holding back. In the company of friends usually less worried about propriety. There are people who, in general, are more inclined to do things from which the majority, at least partially, restrain themselves, for example, to burp. If all of the above is true, then manipulations are signs of discomfort only in official situations and in not-so-familiar companies.
Thus, manipulations are not a reliable sign of deception, because diametrically opposite states can mean discomfort and relaxation. In addition, the liars know that the manipulations need to be suppressed, and periodically most of them succeed in this. Liars do not have any special knowledge on this issue, just that manipulations are signs of discomfort and nervousness has become part of well-known folklore. Restless behavior is considered a sure sign of deception, so it is usually thought that the deceiver will fidget. When we asked people how they would recognize liars, the first place in terms of the frequency of answers was this: liars fidget and hide their eyes. Signs known to all, including actions that are easily suppressed, will not be very reliable in cases where the stakes are high and the liar does not want to be caught.
Female nurses showed no more manipulation when they lied than when they told the truth. Although other studies have found an increase in the number of manipulations with deception, I think that such contradictory results are explained by the difference in rates. When the stakes are high, the manipulations can be interrupted, because the opposing forces act on the person. High stakes force the liar to trace and control such accessible and well-known signs of deception as manipulation; but the same high stakes, causing fear of exposing and increasing the discomfort experienced by this, can increase the number of behavioral manipulations. A person can notice the frequent manipulations, suppress them until they disappear completely or for a while, after a while again notice (when they reappear) and again suppress.Since the stakes in our experience were high, the students tried their best to suppress their manipulations. In studies that found an increase in manipulation in the process of lying, the rates were small. The unusual situation - not everyone is asked to lie for experimental purposes - could cause discomfort to the participants of the experiment, sufficient to increase the intensity of manipulation. But the result of the success or failure of this deception could not have been either a significant gain or a significant loss, so the liars had no particular reason to waste their energy on tracking and suppressing manipulations. Even if my explanation of the inconsistency of the results obtained is wrong (such interpretations are ex post factum, until they are confirmed by further research it cannot be fully trusted),The very inconsistency of the research results is a sufficient reason for the careful interpretation of manipulations.
Studying the ability of people to detect lies, we found that those who demonstrate a lot of manipulation are considered to be liars. It doesn’t matter if the person is really telling the truth or is lying; if there is a lot of manipulation, he is labeled a liar. It is very important to be aware of the likelihood of making such an error. Let's look at the many reasons why manipulation is not a reliable sign of deception.

1. People vary greatly in the number and type of manipulations. This problem (Brokau's trap) can be avoided if the verifier is already to some extent familiar with the suspect and can compare the behavior typical of the latter with his behavior at the moment.
2. Ошибка Отелло также влияет на интерпретацию манипуляций, поскольку манипуляции становятся интенсивнее, когда люди чувствуют себя неловко. Эта проблема может возникать и в связи с другими признаками обмана, но для манипуляций она особенно остра, поскольку они являются признаками не только дискомфорта, но иногда, особенно в дружеской компании, и комфорта.
3. Все думают, что большое количество манипуляций выдает обман, поэтому лжец с сильной мотивацией будет пытаться подавить их. В отличие от выражения лица, которое люди тоже пытаются контролировать, манипуляции подавить довольно просто. Если ставки высоки, лжецу удается подавить манипуляции, хотя бы на время.

Poses (another aspect in which the body can be viewed) have been studied by many researchers, but due to them little information was found leaking or showing signs of deception. People know how to sit or stand in which setting. Pose, suitable for official conversation, is different from the pose when talking with a friend. Deceiving someone, the person seems to be in good control of his posture and successfully manages it, because neither I nor other researchers of lies found differences in the positions of people who lie and speak the truth ^[80] .
Of course, we did not measure those posture characteristics that are variable. There may be a tendency to lean forward, experiencing interest or anger, and lean back with fear or disgust. A liar with a strong motivation, however, must be able to suppress all signs of these emotions, given by the pose, except the most subtle.