In training towards expertise in detecting deception, the analyst/investigator goes through various phases of both learning and professional growth.
It often begins in zealous thirst for knowledge and the foundation establishment begins in earnest by trusting in the principles to guide you.
The trust in the subject is something that is taught early, often and is reinforced throughout the career of the analyst. It is, even in advanced work, something that surprises experienced analysts. It is very difficult to lie in an open statement and maintain the lie. The trained professional learns to glean a great deal of information from a lying subject.
Another stage in development is the complexity of lies. In a recent assault case, the subject was deceptive, but only in what information was left out. The need to portray it as a "left wing attack" was contrived, even with elements within it. Deception is, for the most part, complex.
The analyst moves into a stage where the learning curve begins to yield to this pressure and perseverance and encouragement is needed.
Context
We ask questions; lost of them.
We ask questions about words.
Why this word?
Why this word here?
Why this word now?
Why not another word, instead?
I recently reviewed an expert's work where he highlighted the article, "the" in an open statement and brought it to a startling conclusion which matched all else known about the case. He did it by focusing on the word "the", its over use, and what words the subject could have used instead. It was brilliant.
Next Step
In team analysis, the one with the solid foundation now moves to a critical stage: application.
Here is where deception detection, or "Statement Analysis" moves to the introduction of "art form" and relies upon not only the skill of the analyst and the quality of questions asked, but specifically,
the experience of the analyst.
Here is where the iron sharpens iron and new analysts rub shoulders with some of our nation's top analysts, and is also exposed to international influence: analysts from around the world bring entirely new and shifting perspectives even while embracing the same principles.
"Tell Me About Yourself..."
This is a valuable tool in many fields but is especially useful in employment as well as investigations (including criminal, child abuse, journalism, etc) as it allows the subject to tell us what is most important.
Remember, no one can tell us everything.
They must choose:
What information to share and what not to share.
What order to put the information.
What words to choose.
What words to avoid.
Where to place each word.
This is done for the purpose of communication. Even with regional dialect and expression, the person is speaking with the presupposition of being understood. Hence, analysis can and should be done.
Here in the United States, non government companies are limited as to what questions they may ask an applicant. Companies fear being accused of discrimination which can have consequences beyond a suit. Companies want to hire the best and brightest so that productivity and profits are either maintained or increased. They do not want someone who is going to steal from them, including "gaming the system" with false allegations, nor to destroy their reputation. They want excellence.
In 2001, the U.S. Dept. of Justice stated that approximately 40% of those who stole from their company intended to steal during the hiring process. That is, they planned it before they were even hired. This is to deceptively withhold information (motive) in the employment process. Withholding information is the most popular form of deception, outside of court where "I don't recall" is number one.
This statistic, though it seems extreme, does not include the above reference to gaming the system through fraudulent claims. Anecdotally, this is both popular and successful.
The skill of lie detection can save companies and law enforcement from acute consequence of hiring the wrong person.
"I am a hard worker. I have a good heart. I have a strong mind and strong body. I cook at a homeless shelter. I like to work with people. I am a someone you can trust. I have a good mind. I..."
Here we have only the beginning of an applicant's description of self.
We ask questions in our analysis.
"I am a hard worker."
This is where the subject began his statement. It begins with the pronoun "I" which suggests to us that if we are paying attention, we are very likely to gain reliable information. This should make sense intuitively, as the applicant is "present" in the statement, psychologically, with the pronoun "I."
It is likely that the sentence, "I am a hard worker" is reliable. This means that subject believes his own words. His subjective understanding of "hard work" may or may not match ours, but he is not trying to deceive us.
Questions:
What is hard work to you?
Have you ever worked with those who did not work hard?
What was that like for you? (critical question)
Have you worked with some who out-worked you?
What was the hardest work you've done?
What was the easiest?
We ask questions about others as this encourages the subject to feel free with his answers. We often find information about a subject as the subject tells us about someone else. This is a critical strategy used intuitively by parents, and by training in investigations. Where one is concealing information about self, the information weighs heavily on the mind and may "leaks out" when the subject is talking about someone else.
"I am a hard worker. I have a good heart. I have a strong mind and strong body. I cook at a homeless shelter. I like to work with people. I am a someone you can trust. I have a good mind. I..."
In the above statement, I reported that the applicant likely has a criminal history and if so, the volunteer work may be court ordered.
The company is permitted to run a criminal background check only in their home state, and in this case, he had no criminal history.
"I am a hard worker. I have a good heart. I have a strong mind and strong body. I cook at a homeless shelter. I like to work with people. I am a someone you can trust. I have a good mind. I..."
Questions we pose applicants are for the interview.
Questions we pose in analysis are for ourselves.
Who says, in an open statement, that they have a "good heart"?
*Perhaps someone who has been told that he does do not have a good heart.
*Perhaps someone who has been told that he does have a good heart.
Which might it be?
When I assert one answer over the other, it is natural that another analyst disagree.
The sentence structure is such that the subject believes it.
How can we know?
This is where a new growth period takes place in the career of the analyst; a growth period that should never come to an end.
This is where the analyst/investigator's exposure to language and hundreds of statements, on a regular basis, serve him in his conclusion.
This is where a report comes down to the skill of the analyst.
In open statements, those who assert having a good heart have often committed crimes with their hands (physical) and may have been told by one's own mother, for example, "but you have a good heart, son..." by way of attempting to encourage better.
The ancient gnostic belief that separates us into "two" is common today and human nature's aversion to guilt only strengthens it.
It is like me claiming to have a "very tall, thin handsome man living inside of me", humorously, to illustrate the point.
It is not only a sense of minimization of an action, but it is to disassociate with what was done.
This was something that I have seen in applicants before, enough times to know it needs exploration.
But there is more. "I am a hard worker. I have a good heart. I have a strong mind and strong body. I cook at a homeless shelter. I like to work with people. I am a someone you can trust. I have a good mind. I..."
Analyst recognize that any word repeated is going to be important.
Here, in this very short sample, he used "mind" twice. It is important to him so it is important to us.
Why is it important to him?
Once it is a "strong" mind, and the second is a "good" mind.
Questions for us to ask ourselves:
Why does he need to assert that his mind is "strong"?
Why does he need to assert that his mind is "good"?
Why does he need to assert these things here, in the job application process?
Why does he need to assert it twice?
Why does he need to assert it very early in his page-long statement, increasing it as a priority?
Who asserts having a good mind?
If we consider, "I have a good heart", in context, we may consider that this applicant is telling the truth: he is smart. The necessity of including it here and via repetition, suggests a need.
Might this, too, be that upon doing something "not smart", someone encouraged him with, "But you have a good mind. You must use it!"?
This would be consistent with having a "good heart" in an open statement.
We know that women who assert in an open statement "I am a great mother!" have been likely accused of the abuse and/or neglect and may even have been investigated, formally, for such.
This is not a moral judgment, but a question as to "Why would this person feel the need, in an open statement (not as a result of an accusation nor of a question) to make this assertion?
I believe our subject is telling the truth about his belief system. I may or may not agree with him, about the definition of hard work, but it is in the necessity of assertion that we see missing information.
"I cook at the homeless shelter."
Context:
Is the subject applying for a position as a cook, cook's assistant, or anything related?
If so, this is would be an appropriate point for him to make. It would be relevant to the position and a point of strength (+) in the analysis.
Here, it was not a cooking position.
In having done many such statements, I have found an anecdote connection to court ordered community service.
My conclusion for the company was that this subject is likely concealing information of a criminal nature. The criminal activity, if true, is not only likely serious, but may have included assault.
The criminal history was out of state.
It was not one point, alone, that caused me to make this conclusion, but the points above, which were affirmed in the entirety of his application.
The accuracy of the conclusion could not be reached without the experience of many statements with much repetition.
This is essential for the professional.
Some jobs, by nature of the work, are marvelous for such learning. A former court stenographer recently wrote to me about this. Imagine confronting words at court, hour after hour, and what it provides?
This fall, I will be teaching deception detection at HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) where many analysts have duties that are marvelously conducive to Statement Analysis training experience. Anyone working with words has exposure to the practice necessary for excellence. Incarceration where letters must be screened provide hour after hour of practice.
In law enforcement hiring, we are able to employ Statement Analysis to effectively screen out those prone to violence, as well as those who struggle with self control. Most importantly, we are able to screen out those with a deep need for respect from the public.
Law enforcement requires not only intelligence, but one who is personally secure in what he or she does, so that in carrying lethal force in authority, the law enforcement professional is more likely to react with appropriate restraint than one, for example, who craves respect from others and does not bear up with insult from an increasingly uncivil public inspired by exploitative politicians.
For training in detecting deception, we offer both in -house seminars for law enforcement and business, as well as the Complete Statement Analysis Course which is done in your home, via lectures on CD (mp3) and workbook.
For Tuition costs and enrollment please visit
Hyatt Analysis Services.
Additional Trainings Offered
We also offer Advanced Analysis for those who successfully complete the first course.
We offer ongoing live team analysis training, month after month, for those enrolled or who have completed our first course.
This can lead to formal certification and is accepted as Continuing Educational Units for professional licenses through the University of Maine (CEUs).
For advanced professionals, including law enforcement, private investigators, and interviewers, we offer advanced seminars tailored to the skill and need of those attending. This includes anonymous author identification, Analytical Interviewing and threat assessment.
Sex Crimes Units: we have entire teachings on the language of victims. Where some adult victims sound deceptive, we are able to show those with experiential knowledge of a case, including perseveration from past trauma.
Child Protective Services: legally sound interviewing and analysis to protect children and families. This includes content analysis and discerning such troublesome issues as coaching in language. Forensic interviewing is enhanced through analysis.
Employment Analysis: Screening for discerning those who are most likely to steal, exploit, or cause damage to companies and departments. This enables companies and law enforcement to hire the best and brightest.
Next up: emotions in Statement Analysis