April 25, 2012 -
Did John Edwards work with his aide to hide his affair or didn't he? Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if he is found guilty on six charges of violating campaign finance laws, allegedly paid off to his mistress Rielle Hunter. As his trial plods along, there are certain tells, experts say, that reveal when a person is lying -- whether that be him or his aide, Andrew Young. But as detective shows and police know, liars always have their tells. In this slideshow, we take a look at the ways liars show their true colors.
Even if a liar can put on his or her best poker face, unconscious emotional "cracks" -- or unintentional and brief flashes of emotion -- give away a subject's real mental state, according to a study by Stephen Porter's Forensic Psychology Lab at Dalhousie University.
Although sudden cracks in facial expression could give away subtle clues to deception, one researcher found that tiny movements in facial muscles -- such as the zygo maticus major and the orbicularis oculi -- can unmask liars. Social psychologist Mark Frank used computer technology to analyze facial expressions, following a large body of research "about the evolutionarily-derived nature of emotion and its expression," according to a press release on EurekAlert!. Micro-expressions in subjects' faces, such as tics, smiles, frowns and wrinkles, essentially serve as accurate windows into the emotions, even if the person being interrogated is trying to suppress his or her feelings. Frank's system can be used not only to uncover potential criminals, but also even reveal terrorist threats. Frank, however, is quick to point out that his system only provides investigators with "very good clues" and "not proof of anything."
The Eagles may have been on to something. Eyes may reveal a liar in the act, and scientists at the University of Utah have developed technology to detect just that, as reported by Discovery News' Tracy Staedter in 2010. A computer camera and tracking software record minute eye movements to measure cognitive reaction. By contrast, a polygraph measures a subject's emotional reaction. The system "also records other variables, including the time it takes to respond to a question, how long it takes a subject to read or even reread a question and how many errors are made," according to the report. The researchers hope that the technology will be adopted by various U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies that regularly employ polygraph tests.
As anyone who has ever dealt with a bad liar before can attest, some people just can't keep a story straight. But even the most talented studied storyteller can fall into some familiar speech patterns that indicate a truthful tale. In a study published in American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, UCLA professor of psychology R. Edward Geiselman and his colleagues reveal speech patterns they have detected that are often red flags for deceit. Liars very often provide few details, have a tendency to repeat questions, actively monitor listener reactions, speak in sentence fragments and more. To unmask dishonesty, Geiselman and colleagues suggest listeners have potential deceivers tell their story backwards, ask open-ended questions and never interrupt.
If the source of every lie is the brain, shouldn't it be possibly to simply see if that particular region of the brain associated with deceit is active when a subject is lying? Scientists are attempting to use functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging (fMRI) as a lie detector. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, Joshua Greene, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard University, found that "areas within the volunteers' prefrontal cortices registered vigorous activity," according to a report on TIME.com. However, as Greene admits, the technique can't tell the difference between someone who intends to lie and a person who is contemplating whether to lie. Despite the limitations of this kind of technology, at least two companies have offered lie detection services using the same technique. This application has led some scholars to criticize these lie detection methods as no better than the polygraph. Even though these kinds of studies currently have their detractors, the efforts aren't without warrant. A 2005 study out of the University of Southern California and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found brain abnormalities in people who are habitual liars. "The liars had significantly more 'white matter' and slightly less 'gray matter' than those they were measured against," according to a press release available on Science Daily. The wiring in the brain, white matter may help liars with the extra cognitive effort needed to fabricate information.
Liars may not actually have their pants on fire, but their faces sure seem to heat up when they're not telling the truth, according to a study led by the Mayo Clinic and published in Nature in 2002. In 80 percent of cases studied for the experiment, heat patterns in the face change dramatically when a person is lying. Using high-definition thermal imaging technology, an investigator can monitor these heat patterns to assess the veracity of a subject's statements.
Although handwriting analysis is often regarded as a pseudoscience, it may have a potentially legitimate application in assisting with lie detection, according to researchers at the University of Haifa in Israel. Using a computerized tool to detect a user's hand movements, the researchers found that certain cues, such as "the duration of time that the pen is on paper versus in the air; the length height and width of each writing stroke;
the pressure implemented on the writing surface," can signal when someone is about to write an untruthful statement, according to a release in Science Daily. This technology is intended to work in tandem with verbal-based lie detectors.
Justin Bieber’s neighbors aren’t happy: Complaints about the teenage multi-millionaire pop star range from speeding through the neighborhood to spitting in someone’s face to, most recently, egging a nearby house.
Whatever the current investigation turns up, Bieber is certainly not the first example of a child star misbehaving, but it raises the question: Why do child stars so often fall apart?
Several factors probably come into play, experts said, including personality, a unique upbringing, and an early sense of entitlement.
Frank Farley, a former president of the American Psychological Association who studies risk taking, has a name for the type of personality often shared by celebrities: T-type, or thrill-seeking.
“It’s what gets them to where they are,” he said. “They’re pushing the envelope, they’re taking risks. Going to a casting call and being judged -- most people couldn’t tolerate it. One of the top 10 fears in America is speaking in public.”
Type T personalities are often highly creative, people who can handle uncertainty and risk. It would be hard to make it in Hollywood without those qualities. But there can be a downside.
“The other side is the T-negative,” Farley said. “It’s the destructive risk-taking, thrill-seeking. Take John Belushi and Chris Farley -- you have to be really creative to be an improvisational comedian. But then in their makeup they had the destructive side and that’s what killed them (both died of drug overdoses at age 33). Let’s hope Justin doesn’t go in that destructive direction.”
Caroline McCredie/Getty Images
Often Type T personalities are able to overcome that destructive side by using their creativity and innovative qualities.
“They’ll say, I can find my way out of this mess,” Farley said.
Child stars tend to face different hurdles than most of us, pointed out Karen Sternheimer, author of "Celebrity Culture and the American Dream: Stardom and Social Mobility" and director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Sociology at the University of Southern California.
“For many people in this circumstance, the power dynamic between them and traditional authorities can be reversed, especially if the child is supporting their family financially,” she said.
Child celebrities often miss out on institutional experiences like school that provide a common background for most people. They grow up with greater autonomy and fewer constraints than most kids. Combine that with early success, and child stars may “come to see themselves as special, as they are treated like deities by fans and some around them,” Sternheimer said.
Those early experiences may lead them to believe that rules don’t apply for them, or that they won’t face the same consequences as others.
One consequence child celebrities face more than most, however, is the scrutiny of everything they do, living so much of their lives in the public eye.
“These stories serve as modern-day morality tales reflecting a cultural tension between consumption and self-control,” Sternheimer said.
“(In my book) I write that such stories can be connected to the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches stories of the 19th century, which emphasized hard work and moral turpitude as necessary for economic success. Stories of out-of-control celebrities -- especially young ones -- highlight failures of self-control.”