Laughter and the Detection of Deception October, 2003

Recently my wife and I attended her high school reunion. While such reunions are marketed as a great time and an
opportunity to get re-acquainted, in truth they are very anxiety provoking. The reunion forces classmates to reveal
occupational and marital failures, the success or disappointments of raising a family, health problems and the
undeniable effects of aging. As my wife became engaged in conversation I sat back and observed the people in the
room. I heard talking and a great deal of laughter. This observation reminded me of something I learned years ago in a
psychology class -- people relieve stress and anxiety by talking and laughing.

During any formal interview intended to assess a person’s credibility, the subject of the interview will experience anxiety
and general nervous tension. Consequently, laugher or attempts at humor by the subject will be a natural outlet for
anxiety. Under some circumstances, however, laughter can be a behavior symptom of deception. The following
guidelines are offered to assist in the investigator’s interpretation of a subject’s laughter or attempts at humor.

Attempts at humor

When a truthful suspect is being interviewed concerning a crime, common sense would indicate that the person should
be very concerned and serious. On the other hand, because the suspect is experiencing anxiety, it is not uncommon for
the truthful suspect to engage in some levity in an effort to relieve general nervous tension. As an example, during the
early minutes of an interview a verified truthful suspect was asked, "What do most people call you?" The suspect's
response was, "Well most people call me George except when I’m in trouble with my girl-friend, then she calls me all
sorts of nasty names (laugh)." As the interview progressed, the suspect made no further efforts at attempted humor.
The fact that the suspect's humorous statement occurred at the beginning of the interview points to general anxiety
release and should not be used as a behavior symptom of deception.

Consider a situation where the suspect’s interjected humor comes much later during the interview. After about 20
minutes into the interview the investigator asked the suspect, "If you were given a polygraph examination on (issue)
what would your results be?" The suspect’s response was, "I’m such a nervous wreck because of these allegations the
needles would probably go all over the place and I'd break the machine (laugh)." The timing of this humor, along with
the implied prediction that he would fail the examination, both support deception.

Another category of attempted humor can be described as sarcastic humor. Sarcasm is often a veiled truth. For
example, a suspect is asked, "Have you ever thought about forcing a woman to have sex with you?", and he answers,
"Oh definitely. I spend all of my time thinking about ways to get women to succumb to my male desires (laugh)." The
suspect’s answer is an implied denial, but the literal interpretation about his underlying fantasies is probably closer to
the truth.

Evaluating the smile

A forced or insincere smile is often used to disguise dislike or anxiety. Consider the situation where two opposing
attorneys meet to discuss their current litigation. Following the introduction they shake hands (a custom to demonstrate
that neither are carrying weapons) and offer a forced smile when replying, "It is a pleasure to meet you." With an
insincere smile, often the lips barely part and the smile lasts for only a second or two.

On the other hand, a genuine smile reflects acceptance and appreciation. A sincere smile will involve a full parting of
the lips and will last an appropriate length of time. An important aspect of evaluating the sincerity of a smile is the
context in which the smile occurs. When I arrive at a training site and meet the course coordinator who informs me that
the outline books have arrived and he has the AV equipment all set up and ready for me to use, my smile reflects
genuine appreciation.

However, consider the smile in the context of an interview. I am about to walk into a room to assess the credibility of a
suspect accused of selling classified documents to a foreign government. As I enter the room the suspect gets out of
the chair and vigorously shakes my hand. While smiling ear-to-ear he says, "It’s a real pleasure to meet you Mr. Jayne.
You have such a neat job and, by the way, that’s a really nice suit you’re wearing." Instantly I know that I have just
shaken the hand of a liar. No person (innocent or guilty) enjoys coming to our office for an interview. The phony smile
this suspect offered is of the variety associated with a used car salesmen - it is too broad, too frequent and
inappropriate given the nature of our interaction.
During a different context, the interrogation, the investigator may see the guilty suspect smile partially in what might be
called a smirk. This slight smile involves the closed lips twisting in an upward turn. Often, when a suspect smirks the
investigator assumes it is a symptom of defiance and cockiness and may stimulate a defensive remark such as, "Wipe
that smile off your face when I’m talking to you." In truth, the suspect has little conscious awareness that he is forming a
slight smile. In many instances, the smirk is a symptom of accepting the investigator’s statements and underlying guilt
feelings. It is a symptom that the suspect is getting close to making the first admission of guilt, and the investigator
should recognize it as such.

Evaluating the laugh

Psychologically, the laugh relieves much more anxiety than a mere smile and sends much stronger social signals.
Studies show that laughter lowers blood pressure and stress hormones, that mutual laughter builds stronger
interpersonal relationships and that people who laugh easily are judged to be more approachable and trusted than
individuals who rarely laugh. With respect to detecting deception during an interview, an investigator should consider
three primary causes for a suspect to laugh.

The first cause for laughter during an interview is anxiety release. This should be associated equally with truthful and
deceptive suspects. The nervous suspect will look for any excuse to laugh to relieve anxiety. For example, the
investigator may ask to see the suspect’s driver’s license and, in retrieving it from a wallet or purse, the suspect drops it
on the floor. Upon picking it up the suspect may respond, "I’m a little nervous talking to you, sorry (laugh)." This is
ambiguous laughter and should not be associated with truth or deception.

A second cause for laughter during an interview is associated with interjected humor. Consider the suspect who is
asked, "What do you think should happen to the person who took the money?", and the suspect responds, "I’d like to
get my hands on him first (laugh). But I guess jail would be the best place for him." This suspect’s laughter is
appropriate in that he is initially suggesting an exaggerated illegal means of punishment and offers a humorous
solution. Appropriate laughter of this nature, in and of itself, is not a behavior symptom of deception.

The final, and most important cause for laughter (from a detection of deception perspective) is laughter that can be
considered inappropriate. Psychologists refer to this behavior as erasure because it has the psychological effect of
erasing the meaning of the statement. To appreciate erasure consider the nonverbal behavior of winking. If I make a
comment to a coworker, which is not intended to be taken seriously, I may wink after making the comment. The wink
erases the meaning of my words. Similarly, deceptive suspects may erase the meaning of their words through an
inappropriate laugh.

As with all behavior symptoms, when evaluating a laugh as possible erasure the investigator must evaluate the timing
of the laugh. The following are all examples of verified deceptive suspects whose laughter followed a significant
statement:

Q: "Who do you think stole this $200?"

A: "No one. I don’t even know that it was stolen (laugh)."

Q: "Once we complete our entire investigation, how do you think it will come out on you? "

A: "Clean (laugh)."

Q: "Have you ever just thought about having sexual contact with a child?"

A: "That thought repulses me (laugh). "

On the other hand, when a laugh occurs prior to a statement, or in the middle of an innocuous statement, the
investigator should not consider it as possible erasure. The following examples both illustrate insignificant laughter:

Q: "How do you feel about being interviewed concerning this missing money? "

A: "(Laugh) Kind of scared, I guess. I've never had to go through anything like this before."

Q: "Have you ever been questioned before concerning missing money?"

A: "Never. That's why this whole thing, you know, (laugh) is so weird."
As these guidelines suggest, when a suspect laughs inappropriately during an interview the investigator should ask
himself, "What did the suspect just say?" If the laughter followed a significant statement (usually a denial or a stated
position on an issue), erasure should be suspected. On the other hand, laughter that occurs during an interrogation
should almost always be considered inappropriate. Because of the accusatory nature of the interrogation, the wrongfully
accused suspect will not relieve anxiety by making light of the accusations and laughing them away. The truly innocent
suspect’s anxiety will escalate to anger and frustration which will be directed at the investigator.

In conclusion, because laughter and humor relieve anxiety, it is common for both truthful and deceptive suspects to
engage in these behaviors during an interview. The mere presence of laughter or attempted humor during an interview
should not be considered a behavior symptom of deception. However, by considering the timing and context of the
behavior, laughter or attempted humor may become a meaningful symptom of deception. In the context of an
interrogation, laughter or levity is inappropriate and should be associated with the deceptive suspect.