It can be incredibly hard to tell if you ’re being lied to – even so - called “ lie detector ” machines clamber , as we incur out inissue 8of our e - magazine CURIOUS . Thankfully , a new study has amount through with a comparatively mere tip to help us discern fact from fable : look out for lack of detail .
bury studyingfacial or verbal cuesor attempts to bewitch your alleged liar out withdistraction ; focusing solely on the story of item in what people say may be the best tactic if you want to do it if you ’re being led up the garden path .
While assessing a wide range of behavioral cues might seem like the most honest path to catch a prevaricator , it could actually be making thing harder , according to the researchers .
“ This is ludicrous , because it ’s an impossible task , ” first source Bruno Verschuere said in astatement . “ People ca n’t assess all those signals in a short time , let alone incorporate multiple signals into an accurate and truthful judging . ”
alternatively , Verschuere and colleagues suggest , stick to just one signaling .
“ It feels very counterintuitive to just take heed to what masses are saying and not to make up attention to all variety of other signal , such as how convincingly or emotionally someone conveys their narrative , ” explained Verschuere .
“ But the great unwashed who secern the Sojourner Truth can give a rich description because they actually live the event , whereas although liars can come in up with details , this increases their peril of being caught . ”
To investigate , the team conducted a series of experiments . player were split into two groups , one hangdog and one innocent . The hangdog group were tasked with stealing an exam from a locker and later had to lie about this , while the free group spent clip around campus . Over nine studies , another group of people had to appraise whether the participants were being dependable or deceptive about their whereabouts based on handwritten statements , telecasting transcripts , videotaped interviews , and live interview .
When they were free to practice any cue to do this , the group do at the luck degree . But when recount to base their decision only on the level of detail present in the accounts , including place , person , time , and locating , they were well able to discriminate prevarication from the truth . For object lesson , in one study , using multiple cue resulted in just 59 percent accuracy , compared to 66 percent when relying on a single cue .
So , next clock time you involve to tell apart a prevaricator , it might be wise to pay attention to the nitty gritty . The devil , it seems , really is in the detail .
The study is bring out inNature Human Behaviour .
