E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images stock
By Markham Heid
Men's Health
A little snap judgment goes a long way toward making friends: According to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley, all it takes is 20 seconds to decide whether or not a stranger is trustworthy.
Researchers recruited 24 couples and asked each person to talk about a time when he or she had suffered. Meanwhile, cameras recorded the reactions of the speaker’s partner. A separate group reviewed the videos, and was able to identify fake compassion in the reacting partners within 20 seconds.
After researchers took DNA samples of the study participants, it turned out that 60 percent of the least-trusted participants lacked a gene receptor, GG genotype, that may control your compassion and empathy. The receptor helps regulate your body’s level of oxytocin, which past studies have linked to feelings of trust, empathy, and generosity, explains Alexsandr Kogan, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto and the study’s lead author.
Of those rated most trustworthy, 90 percent carried the gene. But since the gene is only linked to perceptions of sincerity, it doesn’t mean you’re unsympathetic if you don’t have it, the study authors say. Observers could weed out the sincere from the dishonest because, Kogan says, “there are certain behaviors that are found to be signals of trust and support.
Whether you’re dealing with a salesman, a new colleague, or a blind date, you can identify bogus behavior if you know what to look for, says Marc Salem, Ph.D., a behavioral psychologist and the Men’s Health resident expert on non-verbal behavior. Look out for these signs:
1. Inconsistent behavior
“If normally someone is very still, and suddenly they become very animated, or vice versa, that change-up is a red flag,” Salem says. The same goes if a person is speaking smoothly and rapidly, but suddenly their speech becomes more deliberate or clipped. “Shifts from the norm are red flags for deceit,” he adds.
2. A steady gaze
“When people think or contemplate, it’s natural for them to break eye contact and look around,” Salem explains. If a person’s gaze is too constant, they’re either not listening or consciously trying to earn your trust. Both are signs of insincerity.
3. Not enough mouth
Coughing, clearing the throat frequently, or any other gesture of covering the mouth can indicate that a person is trying to hide something, Salem says. The same goes for a shoulders-down, hunched-body pose. That’s a sign of caution, he adds, and indicates a person is not opening himself up completely.
4. A quick smile
A genuine smile changes a person’s whole face, Salem says. Their eyes light up, and their cheeks and eyebrows rise along with the corners of their mouth. That smile also takes a few seconds to fade. A fake smile appears in an instant, and disappears just as quickly.
More from Men's Health:
How to Spot a Lying Politician
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
How can you tell if your boy/girlfriend is lying? His/her lips are moving.
I read a study once where children who were frequent liars most often turned out to be the successful adults. Our society therefore rewards liars...
Perhaps, but I hope you don't base things off of 1 study.
@kpokeefe
What is considered successful? Money?
If the person is a politician and they're talking, you can tell they're a liar in a nanosecond.
It was" how can you tell Obama is lying?"
kpokeefe - there's truth to that.
I work in a sales office, and I cant tell you how much it churns my stomach to watch our sales reps bend the truth, or withhold the truth, or flat our confuse a customer in an attempt to eek out more money.
What's ironic, is that the 3 sales reps I work with are all "good christians"...one is christian (reformed I think), another is greek orthodox, and one is catholic. Yet, they have no issues with not fully explaining things to the customers, or marking up a product 300% just make tons of money...
meanwhile, if I explain something "too much" to a customer, i get in trouble. If I offer more information than "is needed" I get in trouble.
The one that makes me the most upset...is when something goes wrong, and the supplier is responsible...our sales reps will hammer the supplier to get a discount...but wont bother to pass it along to the customer, unless the customer raises holy hell. If they simply bring it up and point out that it bothered them...but dont make a stink, they get nothing but an apology.
It's pretty sickening at times...
The flag pin is a dead giveaway.
When their pants burst into flames ...
Watch the republican debates. If they are not speaking they are not lying. Otherwise...
Its actually because children of higher intellect learn how to lie earlier and more efficiently, not because society rewards liars.
Everyone lies, and the worst part is that children know it and emulate this behavior.
Damn hs321...you beat me to it.
I was going to say if they work for Congress, then you KNOW they are liars.
Jason? are you saying intelligent people are more likely to lie? Intelligence has nothing to do with the propensity to distort the truth. Greed, ego and desire of power over others are the main reasons for lying politiucians. Covering up incompetence and misdeeds is another.
The politician bit I expect (tossing in lawyers would also be an expected and cliche move) but the comments on a person's religion somehow making them honest or dishonest still make me shake my head. ANYONE can be a liar regardless of background, career choice, political or religious affiliations. What's ironic is that expect that religious people won't act like any other human being by being either bad or good at any given moment.
As a fraud investigator, I can say that while these may signal lying, they also may be natural habits and/or movements of an individual. Just like crossing your arms on your chest. many interpret as a sign of defiance or closing in on one's self. But it may be a natural body movement for an individual too. So, don't take these as ironclad yes of no--is a person lying? cues.
You've made an important point, ragtopz. For example, let's talk about this one:
While that may be generally true, it's a mistake to assume someone is insincere just because they don't make eye contact. This widespread assumption causes endless grief for persons with autism, for example. Many people with autism report that being forced to make eye contact makes them *LESS* likely to pay attention to what is being said because it's an unnatural thing for them to do. Being forced to concentrate on doing something that feels unnatural makes it very difficult to pay attention.
If you're talking to a person with autism, they may not make eye contact regardless of how sincere they are. In many cases, they are MORE likely to be paying attention to what you are saying if they look away from you. Considering that 1 out of every 100 people has some form of autism, this means that lack of eye contact usually tells you NOTHING about whether or not the person is sincere.
Amount/type of eye contact is highly cultural. Some cultures value eye contact (mostly European/American) where others may find it offensive. Basic diversity.
Believe the science of non-verbal communication and eye gaze forms the nexus to this article.
We really need to start understanding that each of us are individuals and there is no sure fire way to narrow down personality quirks especially in this melting pot. Different nationalities communicate in different ways and kids see this in their parents and mimic that.
I am Italian, Bohemian, Polish and Native American.....I talk with my hands a lot, I talk loud, and depending on my mood I may or may not look you in the eye. I am also a very good poker player which I guess means I am a pretty good liar. One of the best compliments I got was at a poker table during a tournament when someone told me I was impossible to read. I call it acting normal.
Studies only benefit those that need to get something out of them. What point this was trying to prove is beyond me and linking this to a gene is almost comical. In a nutshell, they are saying there is either a truth gene that some lack or a lying gene. Is Bayer going to come out with a new daily pill to counteract this?
Ask your doctor if you might have SLD (shameful lying disorder)....our truth serum might be just what you need. It will also help you quit smoking and lose weight.......two automatic selling points.
How about doing a study to see how many people give a damn that you are doing studies. :-)
i agree with you i have a habit of moving i cant stand still for very long and have a habit of looking around also
Not everyone is an eye contact person. Some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact. I am an eye contact person but I try to be sensitive to how frequently people I am speaking to break eye contact and try to match eye contact to their level of comfort.
This was my reaction too. It is a bit silly to assume that if a person gets animated when s/he were bored before she is lying? If you talk about boring stuff and switch to your passion you bet you are going to start getting excited! The same goes for the opposite situation. Also, if a person is nervous about a presentation or a topic and his/her behavior changes it doesn't always mean he is lying. It may mean he just isn't as comfortable with the topic or may feel insecure talking in front of the expert. there are too many variables.
I just finished a conversation with a man who had very pretty and unusual green eyes. I did tend to look at him straight in the eye just about the whole conversation, but I wasn't insincere and heard all he said. I just thought his eyes were cool. People in various cultures are taught not to look at all or to look or be rude, and if I am really interested I do tend to look almost all the time at sometime..not a stare, but obviously paying attention.
I have asthma and allergies...that clearing the throat part is silly too. I live in a horrible allergy area, and if you took the people here who cough or clear their throats a lot as liars the whole region must be then...lol. I know someone who is very self-conscious about her smile, so she covers her mouth...is she a liar just because of that if someone didn't know why she does it? And hunched shoulders can mean low self-esteem or a back injury, and all they may not not be telling you is they are shy, nervous, feel they are too tall, or who knows what else?
Now on that smile issue I agree a fake one is pretty easy to spot. BUT why aren't they really smiling? Maybe they are tired, hungry, someone is in their face or loud, they have gas and don't want to offend, they are shy or have bad teeth...so many things could be happening.
I usually go by instinct, and yes, I do read signals, but they are more the expression in the eyes and the energy coming off the person. It is a matter of hearing the clues nature gives us and using all our senses. Sometimes those signs may be true, but I seriously wouldn't stake my life on it and leave out some nice people or murderers who may be really good at giving all the "honesty" signals.
I have long understood that I have discomfort with eye contact.
I have noticed that when I try really really hard to make eye contact all I end up thinking about is the fact that I dont know which eye to "stare" at...because I find it impossible to look at both of them at the same time.
Mostly, though...I just dont see the point?
Do we have to stare into each others eyes (sans lovingly) in order to be certain we are hearing each other? If im looking at your face, or the general area...isnt that enough?
I tend to stare off in space when I'm deeply thinking about what a person said or a response. It bugs some people, but I can't help it. In other cultures body language and even smiling can have entirely different meanings than what we are used to.
A pathological liar can look you straight in the eye and tell a convincing lie. Con men have always exploited common misconceptions of trust.
If it was easy to tell a liar in 20 seconds, there would be no deception, improved election campaigns and drastically reduce the court dockets..
Junicon the point they are making is that someone who does not break eye contact to think is questionable.
Ram, You said it best.......
60% of 24? or worse 12? wow that is SIGNIFICANT. Perhaps that same 60% had the gene or lack of to participate in this MASSIVE study. pseudo science and BS reporting.
Yeah, blame it on the missing gene. We should run this test on our elected officials.
Its amazing so many people are out of work when you can create jobs doing this. I'm going to go back to my studies on the effect of alcohol when you drink on a work night as opposed to drinking on the weekends. Apparently I only need a decent group of my friends and acquaintances, around 20, to call it a study.
I believe that if you wear Jordache genes, I mean jeans you will lie more than someone that wears Levi's. Although if you don't wear jeans you must be missing the gene that causes you to tell the truth or is it to be sympathetic. I'm not a scientist, I don't understand exactly what they were shooting for here.
Hey, what about this, maybe some of the people telling the sob story are constant whiners which eventually get no sympathy. So many variables that were not included in this study.
Man I crack myself up sometimes.
if it's statistically significant it's statistically significant. If you want to defend against type II error even more you can set a lower p-value but there is no reason to get huffy over the n-value. now if you want to talk about the implications of this study there is a lot to dispute though I recon the authors are much more conservative in their claims then the msnbc journalist.
I completely disagree. Many of you out there elect the same liars who have served in Congress for 20,30, years or longer and have never learned they are liars. So much for your 20 second recognition theory. With most people, including myself, the only true way you know they are lying, their lips move.
I think political ideology often interferes with people's normal lie detection skills. It doesn't mean the skills aren't there.
This is because people don't vote for what they say, they vote for the letter next to their name. It doesn't matter that they lie, it matters that they are a D or an R.
Should do a study about people who have perfect eyesight yet are completely blind.
It's a 2 party system with 2 liars to pick from. I think most of us just try to pick the one who lies the least. No 3rd party choice, since that almost guarantee's that the biggest liar wins.
How to spot a lying Politician, I never met one yet that wasn't a Liar Big Time. Goes with the job, I guess
How to spot when a politician is lying: His lips are moving.
Politics requires lying. The best liars get elected. They start at local level and as they get better at it they move toward bigger positions. By the time they go for Statewide office they are Past Masters. By the time they go for Congress or President you are looking at folks who are the best liars out of 320 million people. Darned straight they are good liars. They fooled a lot of people and more than a few experts to get there.
I just look for the (R) next to their name.
btone - Which brings us to the next topic, how to spot a fool in 20 seconds.
which is why they never should have cancelled Lie to Me!!
I liked that show! I couldn't always hear what he was saying with his mannerisms when he talked and the accent, but I really liked it and wish they hadn't cancelled it.
The problem with shows on Fox, is that the network only cancels the good ones.
They should cancel Faux, along with MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. Just AP before the rest of them go in the washing machine for a spin.
I can spot a liar in one nano second.
Everyone lies, all the time, about just about everything.
Anyone beat that?
This study is explained oddly:
24 "couples" - what does this mean? Married people? How and why were they selected?
A "separate group" reviewed reviewed the videos - what does this mean? A separate group of couples? How many people were in this group? Did they review the videos as a group? How and why were they selected? Did the videos include audio of the stories?
From this confusingly explained experiment they find "60% of the least-trusted participants" lacked a specific gene receptor for oxytocin - are these participants the ones telling the story of when they suffered or the ones listening? Were the participants actually tested for oxytocin levels?
From what is described it sounds like this experiment demonstrates that people with a partner who lacks this specific gene receptor are more likely to react to them with fake compassion which can be easily identified by others.
What does this study have to do with the title of this story? It's interesting, but Markham Heid seems to be an extremely confused "journalist" or a bad a writer. Regardless of which, he needs a new editor because whoever let this get published is clearly incompetent.
The headline doesn't match the story because if the headline read "Here's Another Inadequate Study" nobody would read it.
There are less journalists in this world and more writers. The key is that a writer can write about anything no matter the facts. Just pluck some study off the internet, put a headline up that will catch peoples interest and watch the clicks come through.
I agree, either the study wasnt very thorough (as most arent)...or the author of this article left a lot out, in order to fit his maximum word count.
so because a group watching videos decided based on behaviours, that certain people were dishonest or insincere, how does that make them (the judges of honesty/sincerity) accurate?
how do we know their assumptions based on behaviours was in fact the truth, nothing but the truth?
testing them for this gene doesnt PROVE these people were accurate in their assessments.
furthermore, did we test the judges to see which of them was missing the gene?
If any of them are, we must throw out their conclusions...as they are clearly liars and cant be trusted.
thats the only rational conclusion we can come to if this fluff is to be believed.
As big a pile of BS as I,ve heard.
One question, one answer, 3 seconds:
"Are you a US Senator or Congressman?" "Yes."
Bingo!
Whenever you see Newt Gingrich - you know INSTATNTLY - not even in 10 seconds - HE IS LYING !!!
Very whitty JimD. This from someone who lives in the state that voted in Barney Frank for so many years! Liberal!
Join the Tea Party NOT the Pot Party!
Liberal is not a curse word. The original tea party is the only one that had any integrity and it WAS held in Massachusetts.
"The truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe." -- H. L. Mencken
sure hope taxes didn't pay for this additional stupid time-wasting study.....
This was headed up by a postdoc vs long-term researcher into lying and honesty. Likely part of his graduate dissertation that he managed to get reported (kudos for that!).
The population/sample size is too small to generalize much of anything, especially biochemically related. What this study does is provide some support for other studies and direction for future research but taken on its own, it's pretty meaningless.
Reporting this to the general public as factual news is poor journalism. At best the article should read; interesting study into detecting when someone is lying was conducted and tentatively showed XYZ as possible indicators but further research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.
I should get my dissertation reported on MSNBC as well... lol.
use this test on the politicians, probabably over 90 percent are lying
Take a look at Newt Gangrene.
I know how...turn on TV and watch the Congressional hearings...or another State of the Union (or Obama info-mercial.)
it turned out that 60 percent of the least-trusted participants lacked a gene receptor, GG genotype, that may control your compassion and empathy.
OMG, they can't help it, republicans are just missing an essential gene receptor for human kindness. They can't help being vicious.
Some people are very good liars and know what to do in order to not get caught, so it's not fail-proof.
Just watch Romney or Newt. They're pretty much lying any time they make noise.
Or, the person is in politics or finance or a corporate executive or advertising or marketing.
I agree with Ultranaut. This is a flawed study. It should not have been reported, certainly under the heading that it was given. As for the references to politicians, after many decades of observing them, I have realized that they are merely reflecting their constituents. Sadly, very few rise above that.
Wow, a lot o these "tells" are things that I do all the time. I am a very shy person so when I have to talk to someone, I tend to be twitchy and throat cleary...because of my nervousness.
It is absurd to suggest that lying can be detected at all. Lie detectors do not detect lies, they are a scam. They make a lot of money off the federal government though. Half of the tricks that law enforcement charlatans use are based on hypnosis. If you convince someone their lies will be detected, their apprehension will trigger the "lie" detector as if the device could actually tell if the subject is lying.
Forcing people to sit for lie detectors really just forced them to learn how to definitively beat the device.
Frankly, the ancient Chinese test for lying was to place dry rice grains in a subject's mouth then ask them questions. Lies, they postulated, made the mouth go dry and the grains would stick to the toungue.
At least that has some basis in physiology. Monitoring blood pressure, respiration and skin conductivity might just as well be reading tea leaves, crystals and tarot cards.
This study is one interpretation of the author's conception of liars. Everybody lies at some point in time, even a little, to emphasize their point of view. I conclude that everyone lies, so what new? {:-)}
Truthfully, About 47% of human communication is lying. We all do it. Some are better at it than others. I suspect women are better at it than men, simply because they do most things better than men.