It’s a fact that no one likes to be deceived, but spotting a lie isn’t always easy. In this sense, a survey by the University of Amsterdam indicates that paying attention to the richness of a story is fundamental when it comes to spotting liars.
Read more: Gain a point every time: 3 “Pinocchio” Characters Who Love Lies
In practice, a person is more likely to be telling the truth if they can describe in detail who, what, when, how, and why. That is, if someone does not bring details of a tale, the likelihood that they are lying is higher.
Testing
Research indicates that a simple test can be the way to separate the truths from the lies. The method brings almost 80% accuracy. In this scenario, observing behaviors through, for example, nervous movements, can be instructive.
After the September 11 attacks, airport security teams across the United States began searching for 92 behavioral clues that expose liars. In practice, the wellknown lie detectors monitor factors such as blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate.
However, even with this much training, professionals often find it difficult to discern what is true or not. In addition, stereotypes about appearance can influence these diagnoses, according to research.
radical alternative
To circumvent these subjectivities, researchers at the University of Amsterdam propose a radical alternative. In practice, the plot consists of relying on only one clue, i.e. the level of detail of the story that a person is telling.
In short, the study suggests that truth lies in simplicity. A total of 1445 people were asked to guess whether handwritten statements, video transcripts or video/live interviews were true or false.
Those who used intuition, for example, did less well on the test. Those who have focused on the level of detail in the reports will achieve greater accuracy in separating truth from lies. In practice, this accuracy rate was between 59% and 79%.
directions
Finally, participants were asked to rate the level of detail, such as the description of people, places, actions, objects, and events. Therefore, the practical direction has been to “use the best (and ignore the rest)” to achieve better yields and success rates.
Study participants were instructed to rate the message based on the level of detail, including descriptions of people, places, actions, objects, events, and timing of events.