Leaks and Deceptive Denials

Truthful statements come with straightforward denials. Thus, we tend to hear, "No, I did not do it," or just "No" from a truthful person who has been wrongfully accused.

Deceptive statements, by contrast, tend to take a more winding path. Often, they sidestep accusations with what sound like denials but, on closer scrutiny, turn out to be evasions Thus, the response that takes the form, "I would NEVER do that," is not denying a specific allegation but instead issuing a statement about habitual practices. In other words, the recovering alcoholic who witnessed a liquor store robbery late at night but had gotten into the habit of avoiding bars and old haunts by "never" going out at night may well say, "I NEVER go out at night" in reply to a question about being anywhere near the liquor store last Tuesday at the time of the midnight holdup. To the untrained ear, this statement may be taken as a denial. He must not have been there, so let's look for another witness.

What does such a deceptive denial accomplish? It spares the person making it from issuing an outright lie. Unless challenged and pressed for a more specific denial ("Yes, sir, I understand that you don't usually go out at night. I am asking specifically, were you at or near this specific location on Tuesday night, specifically any time between 11:00 pm Tuesday and 1:00 am Wednesday morning?"), the person gets away without telling an actual lie. After all, it is true that he normally does not go out at night. Last Tuesday was the one night he deviated from his normal pattern. This irregularity may so bother the individual, that his desire to conceal it overrides his fidelity to the truth. And so he deceives with his quasi-denial, even though he has no complicity in the liquor store robbery, and even though he did not take a drink from that bottle of bourbon he bought, after all. He was nonetheless deceptive in his response.

What does this have to do with deception from the view of deceivers and detectors of deception? Both recognize the same tactic. Consequently, they pay closer attention to word selection in the context of denials. Scientific content analysis and the Reid and Wicklander-Zulawski techniques of uncovering deception make entire disciplines and careers out of spotting such telltale nuances.

Deniability relies on arranging of conditions to insulate an executive or organization, to keep either from being placed into the position of having to tell an outright lie in order to get out of trouble. This is why the top executive's fingerprints seldom appear on anything volatile or controversial. Instead, the executive uses go-betweens who double as expendable flak-catchers. They do the dirty work behind the scenes and absorb the blame if the situation explodes in controversy, leaving their executive masters maneuvering room to make straightforward denials and to distance themselves from renegade underlings. If the executives cannot make straightforward denials in such circumstances, then either they are themselves too involved in directing the activity in question, or their deniability mechanisms have failed.

Consider now a more topical case on the public stage: President Obama's response to the accusatory question of whether he had leaked national security information in furtherance of his re-election campaign. Did he make an outright denial? No. He said the suggestion was "offensive" and “that’s not how we operate.” (Quotes and context are at http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hits-back-offensive-leak-allegations-170532289.html)

Isn't that interesting?

-- Nick Catrantzos