Not lying to IOs: It's science.

I thought of this forum as soon as I read this.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201011/poor-mans-polygraph-part-3

Liars, when faced with two choices, tend to pick one of the choices presented rather than seeking a third alternative. This tendency is due to cognitive overload. Truthful people do not experience cognitive overload; they simply convey facts. Liars, on the other hand, are operating at near-full or full cognitive capacity depending on the complexity of the lies. Liars have to remember what they said and did not say. They also have to monitor and control their verbal responses and nonverbal behaviors. Additionally, liars have to monitor their target's verbal responses and nonverbal behaviors to ensure that the target believes the lie. The mind of a liar is fully occupied, especially if detection has dire consequences.

I just love the way scientists keep discovering that the sky is blue, the sun rises in the morning, chillis burn your mouth, etc. Anybody who has asked "Did you take any money from my purse?" or "Who were you with last night?" or "Did you do this homework yourself?" and received a "shifty" response will know the truth of what that blogger is saying. Training for interrogation duty tends to include guidance on spotting when somebody has something to hide. The famous neurologist and psychiatrist Oliver Sacks wrote of a patient with a brain condition who could no longer understand what people were saying verbally but whose skills with non-verbal signals was very highly developed. In the hospital day room the TV was showing Ronald Reagan being interviewed or making a speech (I forget). The patient turned to Sacks and exclaimed "That man is a liar!"

That reminds me of LB Johnson. When he scratched his ear they said he may be lying but when he moved his mouth he was lying.

I know it's not really new information, but what struck me was the whole idea of "cognative overload", that truthful people have no trouble telling a story even if it's complicated because they don't have to work so hard trying to keep track of everything they said before to make sure it's consistent.

I do sort of wonder what effect, say...20 hours of travel has on 'cognitive overload.'    Personally, I've occasionally had trouble following and answering the lines of questioning by IO's.  It wasn't that I had anything at all to hide, it's that I was flipping exhausted and fuzzy-brained!

And what about things like language barrier?

When you consider the number of other factors that could complicate the immigration entry interview (or, indeed, any other law enforcement situation), then, from another perspective, the article could be seen as 'how to turn innocent, honest people into criminals in 5 easy steps.'

That's a good point. That report on decision-making of IOs did say they try to take the being frazzled by long flights into account, and from what I've read they've frequently been criticized by independent bodies for being suspicious of people trying to come as students who don't speak very good English, when in most countries learning how to write in English is taught much more seriously than learning how to speak.

A "forced response" question is also know as a "leading question" and is usually not permitted in court because it can be used to get an innocent person to admit to something that they didn't do.

Regarding the issues with immigration, I imagine that there could be cultural issues as well. For example, in some cultures perhaps saying "none of the choices you gave me are correct" to an i.o. could be considered to be disrespecting an authority figure.

I just love the way scientists keep discovering that the sky is blue, the sun rises in the morning, chillis burn your mouth, etc.

Actually, what they do more is to discover why the sky is blue, the sun rises in the morning, chillis burn your mouth, etc.

Even though the OP posted about how the article relates to immigration, I noticed that the series seems to be aimed at parents trying to trick their kids into confessing things that they are trying to hide.

I don't have kids of my own, so maybe I'm not the best person to speak up, but I don't think that trying to use psychological tricks to manipulate your children is the best way to develop a good parent-child relationship.

I don't think that trying to use psychological tricks to manipulate your children is the best way to develop a good parent-child relationship.

Once my father missed a low value banknote from his jacket pocket, and he got me on my own and asked me if I had taken it. (I had.) I strenuously denied it, and he said he had asked my sister and she had said that she had seen me take it. I persisted in denying it; I knew firstly that my sister could not have seen me and secondly that she would not tell on me. Also I had read enough crime novels to know about police tricks. When I told her about it, she said "He told me you saw me take it".

I persisted in denying it; I knew firstly that my sister could not have seen me and secondly that she would not tell on me. Also I had read enough crime novels to know about police tricks.

The tips in the article are probably not intended to be used on such criminal masterminds. 

I do sort of wonder what effect, say...20 hours of travel has on 'cognitive overload.'    Personally, I've occasionally had trouble following and answering the lines of questioning by IO's.  It wasn't that I had anything at all to hide, it's that I was flipping exhausted and fuzzy-brained!

Totally agreed here.

Last time I entered the UK, I could hardly answer what airport I had flown from.  The original flight was from Logan, then we changed over at Newark, and when he asked me if I just came from Newark, my sluggish brain thought he was saying "New York" and I was like, "No, no.  Newark."  And he said, "Yes, Newark."  And I said, "Logan, then Newark."  And he nodded like I was an idiot and said, "Yes, Newark."  And I said (still thinking he was saying "New York"), "Boston then New Jersey."