Misguided beginnings
In 2012 I headed up from Singapore to Hong Kong to attend a five-day course titled, Evaluating Truthfulness & Credibility. It would become one of the most fateful trips of my life.
I was working in investigations and felt I needed to up my game. The course did more than that, marking the start of an obsession and postgrad study into behavioural analysis and investigative interviewing. It also introduced me to my (now) friend and mentor, Dr Cliff Lansley.
I was hooked, learning all about micro-expressions, body language, changes in vocal tone, content, and style. It felt like a superman’s x-ray vision, only for emotions and truth. I was misguided.
A little bit of knowledge is dangerous
Understanding and applying are very different. I know how to make noise with my mouth, but that does not make me a singing sensation (as my daughter will happily attest). The application requires dedication, practise, and patience. One of Cliff’s greatest gifts to me was the steps below. Much like singing requires mastery of pitch, tempo, tone, breath, intonation, connection, and emotion, detecting the truth requires real-time filtering of what you see through this checklist.
Today we’ll deal with context.
Context is key
Cliff told me of an experiment he’d observed in European airports. In the wake of 9/11, the authorities were desperate to prevent a recurrence. They hypothesised that if only they could detect the angry people, that might provide a better data-set to monitor – racial profiling was ineffective, unfair, and unpopular. Blood rushes to our arms when we are enraged, ready to fight. This surge causes an increase in the temperature of our arms, perceptible on highly specialised thermal cameras. The facial expressions (and micros) for anger are also clearly distinguishable. Might focus on these data sources work?
No. Most people in airports (if memory serves, north of 60%) are angry. In the Covid era, I imagine that figure might be higher. Fearful folks – with blood rushing to their legs, anticipating flight (figuratively and actually) – are a narrower data-set.
However, there are many reasons someone might be fearful in an airport. I imagine you can conjure up 5-10 in less than a minute; this is context.
Context in risk & compliance
Understanding what people think or feel (list of the core emotions we can reliably detect using micro-expressions below) goes well beyond investigations. I’ve found it invaluable in all areas of E&C, especially risk assessment, training, and developing frameworks and content.
- Anger
- Surprise
- Fear
- Disgust
- Contempt
- Sadness
- Happiness
Before we can make sense of spotting those emotional flickers, we need to understand the context.
Fear of firing
I conducted a risk assessment in Indonesia. Acute fear was visible whenever we discussed interactions with certain agencies (the police in particular). On digging, the fear was not about what the police might do; the interactions were mainly to secure routine permits. No one wanted to admit that to process these (often time-critical) licenses promptly; the police demanded “tea money.” Why? HQ had removed the previous country manager, his removal was not well-communicated; rumours spread.
Contemptuous corruption
I interviewed a whistleblower in a hotel on the outskirts of KL, fearful for his safety after the last person to speak up about grand corruption in hospitals had been run off the road while driving to work. Fear would not have been out of context, but the overriding emotional cues were disgust and contempt. This brave soul recognised that when officials siphon off so much budget through kickbacks, it leaves little for proper equipment installation and training, leading to patients suffering (dying?) – understanding this person’s why was essential to supporting them.
Testy targets
A CEO addressed a Vietnamese subsidiary’s leadership team about the importance of ethics and integrity. Anger indicators rippled around the room. When we asked the group what challenges they faced implementing a culture of ethics (a more benign way of saying, “what’s pissing you off?”), the response was simple, “20% revenue growth targets”. Why had that target been set, without even the faintest consideration of whether it was possible without cutting ethical corners?
Concluding thoughts
In each situation, recognising incongruence or an emotional state is nothing without context. Identifying (some of) what people are thinking can be helpful, but it’s useless data without a proper filter to consider why.
What do you do to understand context when entering a new or unfamiliar situation?