Let Their Words Do the Talking

This is totally bogus. The use of "well" to prefix a response (or as the only response) to a direct yes or no question, or any other question does NOT indicate an impending falsehood. In both examples shown, there was no deception involved. How does the researcher then conclude that the respondent was going to lie?

"Well" as a prefix for a response sometimes indicates the respondent may have some consideration for delivering bad news or information the questioner may not want or may not have considered. That doesn't mean the respondent is intending to lie. In fact, it usually means there's a more truthful answer on the way. "Well" as a prefix *also* indicates the person is engaged in thought about the question, and needs to throw out a wait-word to give them time to formulate an appropriate answer. Even in the case of direct questions, the respondent may want to take time to think about the answer, especially in the case of wanting to understand the questioner's intent in asking the question.

Its seems quite apparent that the answer of Well to a yes or no question has nothing to do with lying at all. It has to do with the parameters of the question and the fact that not all questions are answerable simply with yes or no. Are we paying for this type of research?.... Well...

"Dad need not wait for his daughter to finish her answer because he knew by her use of the word "Well" that she was about to give him an answer she knew he was not expecting."

This is an excellent way to start your children on outright lying to you. People need to listen to thier children or they'll be left wondering why thier kids never talk to them and where they went wrong as parents.
As for the homework question: "Well I have to wait for Jimmy to get done soccer practice so we can work on it." is the type of thing that I have heard frequently.

If you cut your children (or anyone) off, do not hear them out, and demand blind/dumb obedience you WILL push people away and lose their respect.

Well...This is an ignorant article. Well, maybe not the article but the research is. When a person says "Well..." it is a shortened version of "Well, let me think about this for a minute".

Sometimes a yes or no may seem like the answer to the person asking the question but not to the person answering.

There are many people who think in black and white. Others see the shades of gray.

I use "well" quite often when I am thinking about an answer. A lot of times it is because I am trying to give a short answer a question that could have a long and complex answer. Sometimes it is because the question is on a topic I hadn't thought much about before.

Well, I am leaving this website. No lie.

This article makes sense. I get what this guy is saying because if my kids were lying to me, and stole money from my wallet, that is a yes or no answer...there is not a whole lot to "contemplate" there!...unless your seem to be fabricating something that is other than "yes" or "no"...If I ask my kids something more complex, such as, "do you believe in God?", of course, in that context a "well" response might not necessarily point to a lie...it is more of a thought process and very well may begin with a "well" and some out loud thinking.

This guy is talking about a logical tool that can give me a good bearing of how truthful my kids "might" be. Would I use this as the only tool to tell if my kids are lying?...Of course not! Will I keep this tool in the back of my mind and add it to my "parenting toolbox"...YOU BET I WILL!

Reading the article can produce several reactions. At first I did not understand the validity of reading into the word, "well." However, after discussion with my wife, we have come to the conclusion that Dr. Schafer has a point. I agree that it is not going to indicate lies 100% of the time, that is impossible. However, Dr. Schafer points out that it is just an indicator. It is like a puzzle piece, many pieces have to come together to form the picture. Can't wait to read about other indicators!

Great article!

The author clearly states "The Well... technique is not 100% effective, but it does provide you with at least one indicator of deception."

The people arguing against this article either have not read it, or are not capable of comprehending it.

While that is not surprising on the wide open web, it is sad.

writing an entire article on the "well" technique seems a bit weird.
"well" is just an indicator of either evasive answering or of thinking. it all depends on the context and other factors like e.g. eyemovement.

The moment the words "lie detector", "polygraph", or "former FBI agent" are spoken, it is certain that everything following is a blizzard of deceptiveness and lies. It is a shame that Psychology Today should lend its name to any article that even distantly implies that the so-called "polygraph" test is anything approaching a "lie detector". The polygraph, and all police interrogation techniques for that matter, are authoritarian deception techniques designed to overwhelm subjects whom the interrogator or interrogators feel are weak-willed, effeminate, leftist, homosexual... in short, anyone who doesn't share the idiotic black and white world view of the interrogator.

The lie detector and Schafer's folksy little "tricks" are soft torture techniques, pure and simple. Jack Schafer, you are an idiotic scumbag. Have fun torturing your own children you authoritarian bully.

Think of all the children that are dead now in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now, Jack. Think of the dead children killed by Hellfire missiles and 500 pound bombs guided by the faulty intelligence gleaned from your TORTURE techniques, you MONSTER. YOU KILL CHILDREN.

And you brag in Psychology Today about how you manipulate your own child with stupid, bullying mind tricks. You're a BIG MAN, Jack. No one can touch you. Then you go on to brag about how you used to bully people into lying in court, because you have contempt for justice, and contempt for the people you claim to "serve and protect." We're all just children, right? You're the big man. You know what the TRUTH is, right? Scum.

The "Well..." technique is a simple yet effective tool. One might say that a related phrase would be "No but..." The whole point is that in a simple yes or no question, any need for explanation or complication indicated an unnecessary complexity, which is a classic tell-tale sign of deception.

Those of you freaking out about this, think about every time in your life when you've had a need to determine the veracity of someone's words. Is this salesperson really giving me a good deal or blowing smoke up my bum? Did my employee really do what he was told or is he lying to cover his mistake? Asking questions is not torture. Therapists, mediators, judges, teachers, cops, and more have to every day determine truth from words, and this is a sometimes useful technique.

Calm down.

Does everybody remember how Ronald Reagan was praised as a great speaker?

Does everybody remember how often he answered questions with "Well....."

How many people know that Reagan was a spy for the FBI during his movie days? It was only after he was uncovered and kicked out that he got into politics. It's public record. Go look it up.

Good article mate!!

Jim Hubbard's reply gives two reasons that someone might object to this sort of article; another reason can be that spreading ideas like this can complicate one's life by exposing one's lack of credibility.

Similarly, Ron's replies suggest thet he feels threatened by polygraphs and their operators. Why is it so difficult to understand that the "lie detector" is the operator, not the machine? And that the operator is merely a person?

"How do I know the person talking to me is telling the truth?" I ask myself that question every day when I speak with friends, colleagues, supervisors, and the clerk in the grocery store who tells me that spaghetti is in aisle."

You need to do something about that paranoia bud.

Perhaps the person is just loquacious, and presents answers in detail?!

This article presents a oversimplification of the use of the expletive "well", which can be used to indicate a variety of meanings.

For example, when Ricky Ricardo interrogates Lucy Ricardo: "Lucy, did you buy another hat?", and Lucy twists her fingers and looks away, saying "wellllll" - the combination of spoken and body language may indicate a weak attempt to cover the truth.

But when an assertive journalist interviews a top diplomat on sensitive matters of State - can we say that the diplomat is lying?

Here are excerpts from an interview between former Scty of State Condoleeza Rice and journalist Jim Lehrer:

JIM LEHRER: The North Korea talks now underway in Beijing, has there been progress?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, any negotiation has to be judged at the end, not at the beginning. But I think the atmosphere is very good.
---
JIM LEHRER: [North Korea says it wants] to normalize relations with the United States. Is the U.S. prepared to do that?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, back in 2002, the United States...then Assistant Secretary Jim Kelly went to the North Koreans with what we called the "Bold Proposal" to say all kinds of things can happen in an environment in which North Korea is not nuclear and is not brandishing its nuclear capability. [And we were also] concerned about the humanitarian conditions in North Korea.
JIM LEHRER: It hadn't gotten any better, has it?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, no, it has not.
---
JIM LEHRER: ...in light of the Egypt bombings and, of course, the bombings in London -- there's a new poll out today that suggests that more than two-thirds of the American people believe that there is going to be another horrendous terrorist attack in the United States soon. Do you feel that way, too?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, I think on any given day you have to be concerned that that could be the case because, as hard as everybody works, and everybody works very hard at intelligence, everybody works very hard in homeland security to try and secure ourselves...

So Mr. FBI man, would you say the former Secty of State was lying in response to those Y/N questions? I think, like all good diplomats, she used "well" to sound not too certain with the answers, in case some would think they were prepared in advance. Or, she used "well" to hedge her responses and think for a moment before she divulged sensitive information. Or, she used "well" because she wasn't certain how to answer the question - directly or indirectly.