Ari Shapiro, known for hosting a season of The Mole, joins the discussion on the evolving science of lie detection. They explore the effectiveness of polygraphs, micro-expressions, and AI voice analysis, scrutinizing their reliability. The conversation delves into the psychology of lying and fact-checking complexities, emphasizing how social dynamics, much like those in reality TV, shape our perceptions of truth and deception. The blend of personal experiences and scientific inquiry makes for a captivating investigation into the art of spotting a liar.
The history of lie detection reveals that polygraphs, originally medical devices, are viewed as more anxiety detectors than reliable indicators of deceit.
Research supports the use of strategic evidence questioning over unreliable nonverbal cues, emphasizing active interviewing to gather coherent truths.
Deep dives
The Evolution of Lie Detection
The history of lie detection is traced back to the early use of the polygraph, originally designed to monitor vital signs for medical purposes. Developed by John Larson based on William Moulton Marston's theories, the polygraph was later co-opted by police departments for interrogation, despite a lack of solid scientific evidence supporting its accuracy. By the mid-20th century, the use of polygraphs expanded widely across various sectors, often influencing public perception of individuals accused of crimes. Critics argue that the polygraph is more an anxiety detector than a true lie detector, with studies showing high false positive rates in its results.
Challenges in Recognizing Deception
Research indicates that attempts to identify deception through nonverbal cues, such as micro-expressions or gaze aversion, are largely unreliable. The notion that liars cannot maintain eye contact has been debunked, as extensive data suggests that there is no definitive indicator of deceitful behavior. Experts emphasize the need for a shift in focus from nonverbal signals to verbal cues and strategies, suggesting that truth tellers tend to provide more detailed accounts than liars. This new approach highlights the importance of engaging in active interviewing techniques to elicit truthful responses and gather coherent narratives.
Strategic Use of Evidence as a Best Practice
Among various techniques proposed for lie detection, the strategic use of evidence emerges as the most reliable method. This approach involves interviewers asking questions without revealing their prior knowledge of the facts, allowing for untainted statements to be compared against existing information. Such fact-checking serves as an effective means of corroborating the truthfulness of a person's account. The growing emphasis on this method reflects the recognition that traditional lie detection methods are fraught with bias and are often unreliable, highlighting the importance of rigorous investigative techniques.
For over a century, we've been inventing technology to catch liars in the act. To this end, the polygraph was invented and became wildly popular in the mid-20th century. Then, there was an era of "micro-expression training," which claimed person could be caught lying through a skilled analysis of their face. Now, there's talk of using artificial intelligence to analyze the human voice.
But do any of these methods even work? And if not ... what are the risks? Emily and Gina investigates how deception research has changed and why it matters.
Check out our episode page, where Emily linked to the experts she talked to and the papers she discussed.
Got another human behavior you want us to investigate using science? Email us at shortwave@npr.org — we'd love to hear from you!