Defensive Demeanor Profiles

Defensive Demeanor Profiles

Martha DavisStan B. Walters

Neal VorusBrenda Connors

One of the reports from an intensive study of videotapes of confes-sions given by criminal suspects to prosecutors, this focuses primar-ily on the body movement microanalysis of two subjects to illustratewhat are called Defensive Demeanor Profiles. After a summary of thegeneral study and its aims, a 14-step procedure for observing andinterpreting defensive demeanor is described. Three levels of unitsare distinguished: micro-behaviors that occur in less than half a min-ute, “brief states” that typically last two or three minutes and parsethe interview into distinct phases, and behaviors that persistthroughout the interview. The analysis of Defensive Demeanor Pro-files is discussed in the context of empirical study of psychologicaldefensive mechanisms.

KEY WORDS: nonverbal communication; defense mechanisms; stress.

Background and Aims

In one of the case studies of Character-Analysis, Wilhelm Reich (1972,pp. 194–6) described the way a patient exquisitely controlled his every

move and word. The man’s reserved and “somewhat arrogant” counte-nance was so well maintained that on the rare occasion when tears

American Journal of Dance Therapy 2000 American DanceVol. 22, No. 2, Fall/Winter 2000 Therapy Association103

Martha Davis et al.104

welled up in his eyes, he dabbed them with a “dignified composure.”Reich remarked one day that the patient appeared to be playing the roleof an English lord and commented on the “contemporary defensive func-tion” of his “aristocratic manner.” His association was prescient. The pa-tient confided that since childhood he had believed he was descendedfrom English nobility and he hoped someday to escape his lower middleclass German milieu to be an ambassador to England. In Reich’s view,the aristocratic demeanor of this man reflected more than social conven-tions of the time; it was central to his character structure. For Reich,fixed patterns of muscle tension, bodily expression and posture wereboth visible manifestations of psychological defenses and a functionalpart of them. “Character armor” was not only expressed by physical de-meanor, but actively maintained by it.

Lowen (1967, 1971) extended Reich’s work with readable accounts ofhow patterns of constriction and postural misalignment may distinguishdifferent character types (e.g. oral, masochistic, hysterical, schizoid). InLowen’s “bioenergetics” releasing areas of tension in the body is, to alarge extent, work on psychological defenses. But in order to adequatelyassess “body armoring,” the bioenergetics therapist must depend on pal-pation and observation of the body without street clothes, a medical-likeexamination that necessarily limits bioenergetics analysis. Assessmentsbased on observation of interviews and everyday interactions are not aslimited and can be applied to a wider range of people and contexts.

One method for observing behavior in a naturalistic context is the Kes-tenberg Movement Profile (KMP) which has inspired the clinical work ofmany movement therapists (Loman & Merman, 1996). The KMP (Kes-tenberg & Sossin, 1979) is arguably the most complex and sophisticatedmovement analysis of defense mechanisms, but proficiency and accuracyin the KMP requires a great deal of training, not only to discern and recordthe very subtle patterns of tension flow, spatial patterning and dynamicvariation that comprise the KMP, but to interpret them accurately.

We will present a method for assessing defensive demeanor from clini-cal or forensic interviews that does not require training so much as con-centration and commitment. Although experience with observationmethods like the KMP or Laban Movement Analysis is very helpful, it isnot essential, and the results should be easily understood by colleagueswho have no movement training.

The DA Videotapes

The method was developed in a study of videotaped confessions given bysuspects to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs). None of these subjectshad a serious mental illness, and they were not representative of clients

Defensive Demeanor Profiles 105

usually treated by dance/movement therapists except those who work inprisons. Nonetheless the analysis of their behavior has strong clinical im-plications, and it is hard to imagine a more powerful context with which tostudy defensive demeanor than the interview of a crime suspect.

Imagine the situation in which a person is arrested for murder, inter-rogated by detectives, admits to involvement in the killing, and consentsto make a formal statement that is videotaped. In New York City, teamsof ADAs and video technicians are on call round the clock to take formalstatements from suspects of major violent crimes such as murder, rapeand assault. The confessions can be recorded within days or even hoursof the crime. The suspect is not in physical danger—videotaping servesin part to show that he or she has not been physically harmed or coerced.The ADA speaks calmly and respectfully to the suspect throughout theinterview and shows none of the aggression commonly portrayed by tele-vision detectives and prosecutors. Nonetheless, giving a videotapedstatement to an ADA while detectives listen is an acutely stressful andthreatening situation with serious implications for the future of the sub-ject.

Only tapes that were used in court and therefore became part of thepublic record could be used in the study. All subjects were later convictedin a court of law. These statements were the suspect’s accounts and eachframed his or her actions in a decidedly positive way. In almost all cases,the suspect admitted to a lesser crime than the crime for which he orshe was convicted (Davis, Walters, Vorus, Meiland, & Markus, 2000).

The primary aim of the John Jay study was not to analyze defensivedemeanor, but to identify behavioral cues that distinguished false fromtrue statements. As such it fell squarely within research on cues to de-ception—a major focus of psychologists interested in nonverbal commu-nication for over three decades (Ekman, 1985; DePaulo, Lindsay, Ma-lone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, in preparation). A small, butgrowing, number of professionals have begun to train law enforcementofficers to detect cues to deception (Walters, 1996). Studies have shownthat most people are not accurate “human lie detectors” (Ekman &O’Sullivan, 1991), so there is a need for this training. However, thereare gaps in the research that must be filled. Psychological research ondeception cues has used experimental set-ups to elicit lies of little conse-quence. In contrast we studied a real situation in which the stakes werevery high—confessions by suspects in major felony crimes. We did nothave to elicit false statements in order to examine the behavioral cuesthat might be associated with them. Instead, a small number of utter-ances from each subject was confirmed by independent evidence fromthe criminal investigation as either true or false (see Davis et al., 2000for a description of the procedure). One of the hypotheses of the studywas that cues to deception would be different from cues to “stress level”(anxiety, nervousness, psychological pressure). In the process of testing


this assumption, more was learned about how to measure signs of stressand the behavioral patterns that comprise ones defensive demeanor. Fora discussion of the cues to false statements see Davis et al. (2000). Thefocus of this paper is on how a person copes with intense personal threatand psychological conflict, the “stress” cues that reflect this struggle, andguidelines for completing and interpreting a defensive demeanor profile.

Qualitative analyses will be integrated with rigorously coded data andquantitative assessments.1 The coding used in the study was based onDavis’ experience doing movement analysis of psychotherapy sessions(Davis & Hadiks, 1990) and forensic interviews (Davis & Hadiks, 1995)and Walters’ (1996) decades of experience conducting forensic interviewsand studying videotapes of them. For comprehensive manuals with defi-nitions, rules, refinements and recommendations for further research,see Davis (in preparation) for nonverbal coding and Walters, Vorus &Davis (in preparation) for verbal coding.

The thirty subjects of the study varied not only by ethnicity, genderand age, but also by socioeconomic class and arrest record (Davis, et al.,2000), a diversity that contributed, along with their individual differ-ences, to the variety of expressive styles. Frequency and type of gestures,how much was said, how one fidgeted, if at all, virtually every aspect ofbehavior differed from individual to individual to some degree. We do notknow if the patterns observed in this one interview would be displayed inother stressful contexts, but the evidence for consistency in individualmovement style (e.g., Allport & Vernon, 1933; North, 1972) supports thispossibility. What we will describe from this research is an approach toidentifying stress-related behaviors. It is important to emphasize thatthis is not a method for analyzing one’s overall movement style, but asystematic way to identify the limited set of details that comprise one’sdefensive demeanor.

How to Assess Defensive Demeanor

The steps of the analysis should not be difficult for someone with move-ment observation skills and experience in work that involves interviewsand consultations; however, the procedure is time-consuming, so firstone must decide if it is worth it. The Defensive Demeanor Profile (DDP)could be useful for clinical assessment, to develop a treatment plan, orto establish baselines with which to track improvement and change over

1 There were a number of controls against bias and experimenter effects. The nonverbalcoders never heard the sound and did not know the hypotheses of the study or whethersubjects were suspects or witnesses. None of the coders knew which statements were trueor false.


time. The analysis could contribute to understanding issues of particularconflict and difficulty for the client. The procedures could be also valu-able for research on anxiety and psychological defensive mechanisms,critical moments in therapy, and so on. In forensic contexts, it could helpidentify statements that warrant follow-up and closer investigation,which is the way it has been used by the first author (Davis) in consulta-tions with detectives. The decision to pursue what takes at least fifteenhours to complete depends on one’s resources and goals.

The first five steps of the procedure involve observation of nonverbalbehavior alone. The next six involve the verbal “channel.” If one personis doing both the nonverbal and verbal assessment, the movementshould be studied first without sound or background information. Wordscan obscure or bias observations and inhibit discovery. The hours of re-playing a silent videotape becomes an intense exposure to the person’snonverbal style and patterning. Like staring at an embedded picture,obvious details hit the eye first, but repeated viewing and the changesin focus from one category to another make subtler aspects appear untilthe subject’s unique patterning “pops out.” Paradoxically, searching forminute details such as these does not fragment ones perceptions, butstimulates pattern recognition and leads to discoveries.

However, hearing the sound simultaneous with watching the video candisrupt this process. The pull of the audio and words can be so strong, itdistorts perceptions of the nonverbal behavior, and vice versa. Opti-mally, for an analysis of the verbal level, movement observers shouldteam with linguists or psychologists experienced in discourse analysis,but the movement analyst can learn the verbal coding from writtenguides (see Walters et al., in preparation) and do it as well. However, ifone has to work alone, the nonverbal behavior should be assessed firstwithout sound, followed by a scan of the verbal behavior from audio only.

Whether—and how thoroughly—procedures for a DDP are followeddepends on the questions that are of concern and the resources that areavailable for answering them. Assuming there are good reasons and ade-quate resources to proceed, we recommend the following steps:

1. First, obtain a videotape of an interview that lasts at least twentyminutes. The interview should be recorded with a medium cam-era shot for the entire interview. (If two cameras are availablefor a split-screen recording, one in close-up, the other a full shot.)

2. Take advantage of computer event recording software that allowsfor highly accurate coding of behaviors.2 If this is not available,

2 We recommend the Noldus Information Technologies software called The Observerwhich can be configured for any set of behaviors or movement features. The software pack-age can be obtained from Noldus Information Technologies, 6 Pidgeon Hill Drive, Suite180, Sterling, Virginia 20165 (800-355-9541).


repeated viewing of the videotape and paper and pencil will work.3. Review the videotape without sound at least two times to identify

and record the “home base” or rest positions that the subjectholds for more than a few seconds. There should be a limitednumber of arm and leg positions. Disregard how the hands areplaced unless these are the only position changes that the subjectmakes. Include distinctive details about posture or body attitudeas well as ways the head is held. Diagram the room and furniturearrangement and the relationship of interviewee to interviewer.Describe the subject’s position(s) relative to the interviewer, in-cluding any leaning or orientation away. Diagrams, stick figuredrawings and word descriptions are sufficient for this. List thepositions by number and assign 1 and 2 to those that are dis-played the longest.

4. Review the video at least two more times to identify specificmovements and actions that appear stress-related. Table 1 is apotential list based on our study. No one will display all of thesepatterns, and some subjects will display behaviors not on the list,so treat the list as an initial inventory or prompt, and rely onyour judgment to identify the special ways that a subject displaysthe following:a) Nonverbal signs of “Active Stress” such as erratic or sudden

position shifts, anxious facial expressions, fidgeting patterns,mannerisms such as lip licking. (Although holding a positionfor a long period may convey tension and stress through ri-gidity, list it under 3 above. 4b refers to movements.)

b) Actions that are distinctly away from the interviewer such asa shift of the trunk or a turn of the head and gaze away fromthe interviewer which we have termed “aversive behaviors.”

c) Facial expressions, ways of looking at the interviewer or ges-ticulating that seem especially exaggerated, mannered or“put on” (called Performing cues), e.g., mock surprise or verylarge demonstrative gestures that are unusually dramatic

5. Select the most prominent positions and actions identified insteps 3 and 4, give each a letter or number code, and record whenthey occur. (To do this you need the time in minutes and secondsrecorded on the videotape or a computer event recording systemthat allows you to record exact onset time.) If this is prohibitivein terms of time and resources, the list generated by steps 1through 4 is valuable in and of itself for a picture of the individu-al’s defensive demeanor repertoire.

6. Transcribe the interview from the audio without looking at thevideo. If making a complete transcription is prohibitive, than re-cord at least two portions: one that has relatively innocuous or


less stressful content and one that contains the most crucial in-formation and important dialogue. Those who worked on ourtranscripts had no difficulty agreeing on what was the “hottest”or most charged part of each interview, a segment that lasted fiveminutes on average.

7. Parse the subject’s speech into a string of utterances that containsingle bits of information. Give each segment of speech that con-tains one thought or piece of information its own line. If the utter-ance immediately follows a question or interviewer prompt, in-clude that in the unit. In the study these single “Speech ContentUnits” varied from 11⁄2 seconds to 54 seconds and averaged about10 seconds in length.

8. Code the subject’s verbal behavior according to the categorieslisted in Table 1. There are more categories that could be used,particularly for types of speech “disfluency,” but we have limitedthe set to variables that showed an association with stress levelin our study.

9. Examine whether a category varies markedly at Level 1 (briefutterances) or Level 2 (passages lasting from about 2 to 5 min-utes.) If the behavior is constant or relatively unchangingthroughout the session, list it under Level 3. (See discussion ofthe three levels below.)

10. Code the utterances according to dimensions or distinctions thatare of concern. These codes will depend on the nature of the inter-view and the focus of the assessment. In our study Level 1 state-ments were rated in terms of how incriminating they were for thesubject. Raters could agree on High and Low incriminating level,and the demeanor varied in interesting ways with this distinc-tion. In clinical interviews, this might translate to how the behav-ior varies with particularly emotionally charged topics. Or itmight be helpful to know whether certain behaviors vary accord-ing to whom the client is talking about.

11. Parse the interview (or selected sections) into topics or contentthemes for an examination of what behaviors may vary withthem. It is not necessary to make very fine distinctions or subsetsof broader topics. Passages lasting from one to five minutes areoptimal (Level 2).

12. Examine speech and motion relationships and patterns, e.g.,what behaviors vary with a verbal theme in Level 2 or what cuesoccur or increase when the subject matter is particularly “hot” orcharged at Level 1.

13. Organize your observations into frequency tables (see Table 2),diagrams (see Figure 1), written lists and descriptions.

14. Interpret the results. The summary and conclusions are shaped


Table 1Inventory of Potential Stress Cues

Nonverbal1. Eyelid and Gaze Behavior

a) Blinking so rapid that lids flutter or momentarily close.b) No blinking for 5 seconds or more.1,2

c) Rate of change in gaze direction (number of changes over durationof interval).2,3

d) Gaze turn markedly away from interviewer, or special gaze avoidancepattern.1

e) Glances at camera.1,2

2. Facial Expressions and Actionsa) Anxious worried facial expression, brows knit and raised.1,2

b) Mouth mannerisms (e.g., lip biting or lip pursing).1,2

3. Head Holding and Movementsa) Position/carriage of head tilted way down or turned markedly away

from interviewer.2,3

b) Head completely immobile during speaking turn.1,2

c) Head moves that accompany speech very tiny relative to baseline.1,2

4. Body Positions and Weight Shiftsa) Orientation markedly away from interviewer or torso markedly tilted

if facing interviewer.2,3

b) Arms tightly closed or crossed, or arms extended wide to side or upover head.2,3

c) Hands covered and/or held down (under or between legs, in pockets,etc.)2,3

d) Torso shift away from interviewer.1

e) Weight shifts in place or “squirming” in seat (i.e., not leading to newposition).1,2

f) Erratic, sudden weight shift or aborted position shift (starts to change,reverts to original).1

5. Gesticulations or Speech-related Gesturesa) Palm presentations: series of hand flips palm up or hold of both

hands off lap, palms up.1,2

b) Very tiny gesticulations relative to ones baseline.1,2


Table 1(Continued )

6. Composites or Specific Actionsa) Rigorous and/or rapid hand to hand or hand to limb fidgeting (rub-

bing, scratching).1,2

b) Series of self-touch actions or adaptors (e.g. nose wiping or hairpreening/fixing).1,2

c) Foot mannerism (e.g. frequent twisting of foot).1,2

d) Vigorous or erratic manipulation of object or furniture (e.g. very tensestroking of chair arm or fiddling with glasses).1,2

e) Hand rub/hand gesture rapid alternation (“Freedmans”).1,2

f) Performing signs: put on, exaggerated, mannered gesture, headmovement or look.1,2

Verbal7. Talk Rate—Number of words in subject speaking segment divided by du-

ration.1,2,3

8. Speech Dysfunctions (e.g., mumbling, stammering).1,2

9. Verbal Qualifiers (hedging terms such as “partly,” “sometimes”).1,2

Notes: 1Superscripts indicate the most likely unit level(s) of the behavior. Superscript 1 refers toLevel 1or behaviors varying at simplest utterance unit of approximately 2 to 59 seconds duration.2Level 2, behaviors varying between about 1 and 6 minutes. 3Level 3, behavior held throughout,constant or continual and without notable variation entire interview.

by the data and patterns detected, but of course interpretationsdepend on clinical intuition and experience as well.

Distinguishing Three Levels of Behavior

The interviews we studied were between 111⁄2 minutes and 42 minuteslong (M = 24m 23s, SD = 8m 4s). Some nonverbal behaviors such as bodypositions could last an entire interview (Level 3). Some movement behav-iors changed only a few times, parsing the interview into segments ofseveral minutes (Level 2). Still other behaviors varied frequently or wereextremely rare and brief (Level 1). These distinctions are particularlyuseful when comparing words and behaviors. Level 1 refers to micro-behaviors that occur or fluctuate in less than half a minute, Level 2 topositions and actions lasting from about 30 seconds to several minutes,and Level 3 to positions and actions that persist through the entire ses-sion. In our study, an increase in certain behaviors during the brief ut-


terances (Level 1) showed an association with High incriminating level.Speech rate, Performing signs, and Verbal Qualifiers were found to beLevel 1 cues to high incriminating level, and there was evidence thatGesticulation frequency, Torso away and Gaze away from interviewermight also distinguish high incriminating level utterances in a largersample of subjects (Davis et al., 2000).

Often, at the “brief states” Level 2 which typically lasts up to two orthree minutes, a particular body position will demarcate a specific themeor phase of the interview. As Scheflen (1964) demonstrated, body posi-tions are especially good for parsing interviews into coherent themes orphases. But Level 2 behaviors can also be a series of actions.

One of these we have named a “Freedman” because of Norbert Freed-man’s work on the distinction between “self-focused” and “object-focused”movements (Freedman, 1977). Freedman and his colleagues were thefirst to point out that self-touch (e.g. stroking the chin) at the start of ananswer can serve a cognitive organizing function, literally the kinesicaspect of collecting one’s thoughts before projecting outward with gestic-ulations that underline the narrative. This can be adaptive and usefulfor discourse, but some people—particularly when under stress—becomefixed in an alternation of self- and object-focused movements like a nee-dle stuck on an old and scratched phonograph. In other words they con-tinuously alternate brief self-touching with simple hand gestures duringa passage of narrative. We have named this pattern a Freedman—self-touch/hand gesture/self touch/hand gesture, back and forth, repeatedly.It was displayed by a few of our subjects in two forms: 1) one face stroke/one hand toss and 2) brief rubbing of fingers/short hand opening gesture.In both types, the two actions alternated continuously for several sen-tences.

As we understand the research of Freedman and his colleagues, thispattern reflects a conflict between inner soothing or “self-collecting” im-pulses and the effort to communicate and project ones thoughts to theother. Hand fidgeting per se was not found to be a very good measure offluctuations in stress level in our study, but patterns like a “Freedman”appeared to be. The critical point here is that these behaviors are notsimply diffuse or random “discharges” of tension or “nervous” manner-isms, they are highly patterned behaviors. It is the patterning that re-veals their defensive and adaptive function.

Examining the speech/motion relationships may clarify whether be-haviors such as a minor difference in body position “makes a difference”in the interview. For example, one subject displayed two arm positions.In one his arm was placed diagonally across his chest, left hand graspingright shoulder, like a “coat of forearm.” In the other position his forearmswere tightly folded across his chest. Both positions were distinctly “nar-row” and closed with at least one hand covered. Was there basically one


position for the entire session (narrow crossed arms, hand covered) orwere there two positions that distinguished different phases of the inter-view? When the sound was turned on, it became apparent that the diago-nal-across-chest position was assumed after the Miranda warning andmaintained during the “tell in your own words” portion of the interview.However, the other position was also displayed during discussion of mat-ters referred to during the “in your own words” passage, so the two armpositions did not appear to demarcate topics or verbal themes in anyobvious way. The diagonal-arm-across-chest position appeared to be an“opener stress” cue. A number of subjects reserved certain behaviors forthe initial, open-ended question that required a personal narrative. Inanother example of an “opener stress” cue, a subject literally clampedhis hands between his legs during the tell-us-what-happened-in-your-own-words phase, but rested his hands on his lap during the core of theinterview.

Are the behaviors listed in Table 1 related to “stress” (nervousness,anxiety, tension, being in the “hot seat”)? This is a research question,and we have evidence from the study that they are, but the measure ofstress level that we used (incriminating level) was a limited and some-what unusual one. More importantly, the list is based on a small groupof subjects, so it is an initial inventory and by no means a comprehensiveone. There are probably many more nonverbal and verbal categories thatcould be used for a DDP. Because it is a specific task with particularresults, we have capitalized the letters “DDP,” but we do not mean thereis only one way to do it and one set of codes. The term “profile” is usedhere to refer to a systematic assessment of the individual’s repertoire ofverbal and nonverbal signs of stress and defense. It could be expandedwith stress-related categories from other movement assessments suchas the KMP (Kestenberg & Sossin, 1979) or the Movement DiagnosticInventory (Davis, Cruz, & Berger, 1995; Cruz, 1995).

Examples of Defensive Demeanor Profiles

To illustrate the Defensive Demeanor Profile, we will focus on two sub-jects from the John Jay study. Table 2 lists some of JL’s “defensive de-meanor” behaviors in terms of rate per second.3 Another subject, “WL,”is included for comparison.

3 Not all potentially relevant behaviors could be coded with these tapes, of course. Mostnotably, microcoding of variations in facial expression was suspended in the study becauseeither facial expression changes were too slight, too hard to see in what were mediumshots, or too rare to be coded reliably for these subjects.

Martha

Davis

etal.

114

Table 2Defensive Demeanor Comparisons: Subjects JL and WL

JL WL

NonverbalPosture stirs �� 3.8/ma

�� 5.7/mGaze Change ��→39/m �� 8/mTorso Away actions �� 1.3/m �� 1.2/mIntense Hand fidget �� 2.3/m �� 4.7/mCamera Glance �� 7/m .b

Performing Signs �� 1.5c�� 2.7c

VerbalIndistinct Speech and Fillers �� 4.1/m �� 5.2/m

(e.g., mumbling or err, umm)Qualifiers (hedging terms like

“sort of”) �� 3.7/m �� 2.3/mTalk Rate 110 words per minute 151 words per minute

Note: arate of occurrence per minute. bnone or “trace” amounts. cAverage rating of a selection of 30-second segments. The rating scale is 1 (none) to 4(prominent) for Performing Signs (exaggerated, mannered or “put on” expressions, gestures or looks).


The nonverbal observations were based on the coding of five movementobservers. Three of them were called Level 1 microcoders. They each hada set of behaviors to record in fine-grained detail accurate to a fractionof a second. One coded details of Positions and weight shift, another as-pects of Gesticulations and Specific Actions, and the third particular dis-tinctions in Gaze Behavior and Head movements. The reliability of theLevel 1 observations was checked by having each coder function as asecond observer for a particular set of variables and samples. Two otherobservers, called Level 2 Nonverbal Coders, did not record specific be-haviors, but instead judged dimensions such as “Performing/Acting” byrating a selection of 30-second segments on a four-point scale from noneto prominent. The movement observers received no information aboutthe subjects and each worked individually and without sound. If ithelped to ease the tedium or clarify an observation, they were encour-aged to make descriptive or interpretive comments as well.

Table 1 also includes verbal cue frequencies. In the John Jay study,two Verbal Content coders identified specific patterns from examinationof the transcript. A third Content coder resolved any differences in thecoding of the first two. Two Verbal Quality coders judged vocal intensity,intonation patterns, and non-content sounds from audio and transcript.They each coded separately, then reviewed and resolved differences byconsensus, a procedure that the nonverbal quality raters also used andthat insured the accuracy of the data subjected to analysis.

Both JL and WL displayed many diffuse and vague verbal patterns suchas mumbling or err and umm sounds, but nonverbally, JL was more “diffi-dent” with his slightly stooped posture and his head tilted down as helooked slightly upward at the interviewer. He limited his gesticulations tosmall hand motions on his lap that blurred with hand fidgeting, and com-pared to WL, JL displayed many more changes in gaze direction and quickglances at the camera. WL had a dramatically different demeanor profile.His gaze was steadier and he never glanced at the camera. He also mademore large body motions. He frequently shifted in his seat and gesticulatedto illustrate his points, even to standing up to demonstrate what hap-pened. Rather than the short hand tosses and simple, vague gestures ofJL, WL was almost too demonstrative. The Nonverbal level 2 coders gavehim very high ratings on Acting/Performing for effect. Unlike JL’s stylewith its vagueness, diffidence and blur of tiny stress behaviors, WL seemedto defend through melodrama and exaggeration.

JL shows up to five times as many changes in gaze direction as WL,but often subjects will display similar rates of a behavior. Frequenciesor rates are limited measures of individual difference compared to pat-terning which is the hallmark of individual style. The typical pattern ofgaze change can be very distinctive, as seen in Figure 1. The gaze pat-terns of three subjects: JL, WL and PM which are diagramed in Figure


Figure 1Gaze Change Pattern: Comparison of Subjects JL, WL and PM


1 accompanied statements that were roughly comparable in word num-ber and duration. WL changed gaze direction less than the other sub-jects, but looked at the interviewer more frequently. JL glanced at thecamera more than the interviewer, but his gaze seemed pulled to a spoton the floor. PM looked so rarely at the ADA that his gaze barely indi-cated that he was in fact speaking to the interviewer, and he lookedmarkedly away a number of times. While a pattern analysis of a categorysuch as gaze direction is time-consuming, it is worth constructing if itcaptures something distinctive about the subject’s demeanor. If it isdone, the behavior segment that is analyzed should be a naturalisticspeech unit or brief Q and A, because gesticulations, positions and gazebehavior are structured by speaking turns.

The quantitative picture of Table 2 and the patterns of Figure 1 illus-trate the “hard data” of the Defensive Demeanor Profile, much like sub-tests of an intelligence test that must be considered as a whole for thefinal report and interpretations. But in a Defensive Demeanor Profile,the special perceptions and side comments of an observer are as impor-tant as the recordings and quantitative data. For example, the nonverbalmicrocoders noted that subject JL displayed a persistent tendency tomake very tiny increments of change in direction, orientation, and posi-tion. “He’s always between the cracks,” never clearly in one direction oranother in his head orientation, remarked the observer who coded headmovement patterns. “Sometimes I can’t tell if he’s fidgeting or gestur-ing,” noted the observer responsible for coding these behaviors. “His posi-tions are impossible to determine in terms of spatial orientation, thereare such small degrees of difference,” wrote the third observer. One ob-server said that even if the coding were adapted exactly to his range, itwould be hard to code him, because he varied around such small incre-ments. Without being asked, and largely to ventilate their frustrations,the nonverbal microcoders began to describe a subtle resistance and ob-fuscation in this “indistinctness.” It’s like he’s “talking, but not telling,”said one.

Meanwhile verbal coders were identifying more signs of diffusenessand obscuring of distinctions. According to the verbal quality coders, JLhad lots of mumbling and guttural sounds in his speech. He also hadmany “filled pause sounds” such as err, ahhh and ummm.” According tothe verbal content coders, he had a penchant for Verbal Qualifiers suchas “I wasn’t actually . . . ,” or “I just happened to be there . . . ” What wasmissing was also noteworthy. JL did not argue the facts or overtly givethe interviewer a hard time.

Many verbal and nonverbal details of his demeanor were isomorphicwith JL’s basic defense that he was not involved, his role was minimalto nil, and he was not interested in what “they” were doing. But whilehe presented as diffident, noncommittal, and seemingly cooperative, he


also “leaked” cues to the contrary. Coders were not asked to make judg-ments about credibility—every effort was made to avoid cuing themabout this aspect of the study—but the nonverbal microcoders spontane-ously remarked about JL’s active resistance, and noted signs of a moredynamic, active side to his nature that was obscured by the “indistinct-ness.”

Sometimes the verbal and nonverbal coding of a single statement cancapture the subject’s basic defensive mode, as in JL’s response to a ques-tion about when the robbery plan was first discussed:

“Well . . . on the way back to my house [small lean of Torso Awayfrom interviewer] we . . . they [Thought Line Break/switch to thirdperson] was thinking about it.”

The cues in brackets are so innocuous that they could easily go unno-ticed, but relative to his repertoire of verbal and nonverbal behaviors,the timing and concentration of these behaviors within this statement isparadigmatic. The cues both express and belie his self-representation asa passive, uninvolved bystander who was only socializing with friendsand relatives who were planning a robbery, and who just happened to besitting nearby in a car when someone was killed in the robbery attempt.The statement quoted above was determined by the criminal investiga-tion to be false. Note how JL’s obfuscating defensive demeanor mergedwith some of the special cues found in the study to be associated withdeception (in this case the “Timebuyer” and “Thought Line Break” cues).

Both JL and WL showed verbal and nonverbal behaviors that wereobserved in other subjects. What was individually distinctive was theproportion of behaviors in relation to each other and subtle variations inhow each displayed a category. As discussed, JL claimed a “Just Lookingon” role in a robbery/homicide. WL insisted he “Wasn’t Looking” whenhis gun went off and killed someone in another botched robbery. Both ofthese men were members of groups who acted in ways that made killingsomeone almost inevitable, i.e., with what appeared to be very weakchecks on their decisions, impulses and group synergy. But while bothwere convicted of unpremeditated murder, WL was the shooter and JLwas an accessory. WL was also far more active and demonstrative thanJL who presented as diffident and indistinct. In several ways the Defen-sive Demeanor Profiles hinted at the difference between perpetrator andaccomplice/follower.

Interpretation

How such a behavioral analysis is interpreted depends on ones focus.For example, if the question is credibility, then examination of behaviors


that accompany statements corroborated as true or false becomes thefocus of discussion. If the question is how does the person psychologicallycope with conflicts and threats to the self, then the interpretation is morestrictly clinical.

In the forensic study, the focus was on how the behavior reflected cred-ibility and the subject’s basic defense, not on psychological strengths orclinical symptoms. JL claimed that he was not involved in the criminalactivities of his friends. His cowed, wary-afraid posture and gaze patternseemed consistent with someone who was a follower and not a leader,and who was deferential to authority. However, the tell-tale shifts awayfrom the interviewer at critical questions and the moments of impulsivereaction belied that he was simply passive and cooperative, and the in-distinct movements with their barely perceptible degrees of differencein direction, orientation and form seemed the nonverbal equivalents ofobfuscation. In the interview JL stressed that everyone else actively pre-pared for the robbery but him; he just happened to be around. But thedemeanor paralleled the criminal evidence that, although he was largelya follower, he was actively involved.4 The behaviors listed in Table 2 anddiagramed in Figure 1 and the comments by the microcoders appear tocapture salient aspects of JL’s defense and his relationship to the crimi-nal investigation. The summary of the demeanor analysis of JL could betitled, “How to duck and keep a low profile.” In fact, he managed to eludethe attention of authorities long after other suspects had been identified.

Conclusions

Psychotherapy patients are often described as “defending” against un-conscious impulses or insights into their intrapsychic conflicts. Psycho-logical defenses such as denial, projection, and intellectualization aremeans by which, in a sense, they deceive themselves—or at least evadesensitive topics. But however basic terms like “defense” and “denial” and“projection” of blame may be to clinicians, they are fundamental to crimi-nal law. In a way this study returns the behavioral analysis of defensivebehavior back to the source of concepts of self-defense. There is, ofcourse, a critical difference between denying something to a therapist (orto oneself) and denying something to a prosecutor. Psychological defensemechanisms presume unconscious, or at least out of awareness, pro-cesses and conflicts, but a suspect in a murder investigation may be fully

4 Could the behavior cues have influenced the judge or jury who saw the videotape? Wehave no research evidence that the behaviors identified through microanalysis could influ-ence judgments made from initial impressions or one viewing. This is another researchquestion.


aware of what he is saying and can articulate the nature of his defense,at least in broad terms.

Without dismissing this crucial difference, it can still be argued thatalthough suspects who give statements to prosecutors are consciouslydefending themselves, there are aspects of their defenses that remainunconscious or pre-conscious. In a sense, the bits of behavior that arecommonly referred to as “nervous” or “tense” or “overdone” etc. are onthe cusp between rational, conscious argument and pre-conscious modesof defense against threats to the self that are at least temporarily out ofone’s awareness. JL would probably agree that his defense was that “hejust happened to be there.” However, it is unlikely that JL was aware ofthe way he used language and motion to obscure his involvement.

The essential argument of this paper is that behaviors such as thoselisted in Table 1 are not simply signs of “nervousness” or cues to hotspots in the interview. They are precisely patterned within the dialoguein such a way that they have both discharge and regulatory properties.As such they are visible and audible manifestations of how the individualcopes with the tension, wends his way through a land mine of threaten-ing questions, and makes a consistent case for his position while he“leaks” information that he probably would prefer to conceal.

Cramer (2000) documents how the analysis of psychological defensemechanisms has become a major focus of empirical research. Many psy-choanalytic formulations have come under intense criticism in recentdecades, but defense mechanisms as originally defined in the psychoana-lytic literature are of increasing interest to research psychologists. It isa subject of empirical research whose time has come. We would arguethat systematic microcoding of movement and speech patterns should beadded to the methods of measurement being developed for this research.Somewhere between rational argument and the inadvertent display ofdemeanor cues, the “mechanisms” of psychological defenses become man-ifested and susceptible to measurement. Movement therapists work atthis interface and understand its complexity. With their experience inmovement observation and analysis, they are uniquely positioned to con-tribute to the modern study of psychological defense mechanisms. Andas Cramer suggests, this research should have major impact on diagno-sis and treatment.

Acknowledgments

Continued support for this study has been provided by John Jay Collegeof Criminal Justice, City University of New York with special thanks toJack Zlotnick and Daniel P. Juda. The credibility study was first con-ducted as part of a U.S. Government-sponsored project on the Analytic


Potentials of Nonverbal Communication directed by Brenda Connors. Weare indebted to the executives in three District Attorney Offices whogave permission to study the videotapes, to the detectives who providedbackground information, and to Detective (ret.) Raymond Pierce, formerHead of the Criminal Assessment and Profiling Unit of the New YorkCity Police Department, whose counsel over several years has made allthe difference. Very special thanks to the behavioral coders: Janis Pfor-sich, Jackie Hand, Charlotte Wile, John Chanik, Ted Ehrhardt, JohnBullwinkel, Margo Galicia, Cynthia Klein, Kimberlea Price, and JustineSchmollinger; to the research assistants: Jenna Fleskes, Jennifer Flah-erty, Lisa Lamson, Amy Harmon and Cathy Connelly; and to computerconsultant, Phillip J. Davis.

References

Allport, G. W. & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York: TheMacmillan Company.

Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today. American Psychologist, 55,637–646.

Cruz, R. F. (1995). An empirical investigation of the Movement Psychodiagnostic Inven-tory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

Davis, M. (in preparation). Nonverbal coding guide for credibility analysis.Davis, M., Cruz, R. F., & Berger, M. R. (1995). Movement and psychodiagnosis: Schizophre-

nia spectrum and dramatic personality disorders. Paper presented at the annual conven-tion of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY.

Davis, M. & Hadiks, D. (1985). Demeanor and credibility. Semiotica, 106, 5–54.Davis, M. & Hadiks, D. (1990). Nonverbal behavior and client state changes during psycho-

therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 340–351.Davis, M., Walters, S. B., Vorus, N., Meiland, P. A., & Markus, K. A. (2000). Verbal and non-

verbal cues to false testimony in criminal investigations. Paper and poster session presentedat the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.(in preparation). Cues to deception.

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage.New York: Norton.

Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9),913–920.

Freedman, N. (1977). Hands, words, and mind: On the structuralization of body move-ments during discourse and the capacity for verbal representation. In N. Freedman & S.Grand (Eds.), Communicative Structures and Psychic Structures (pp. 109–132). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Kestenberg, J. S. with Sossin, K. M. (1979). The role of movement patterns in development,Vol. 2, Epilogue and glossary. New York: Dance Notation Press.

Loman, S. & Merman, H. (1996). The KMP: A Tool for Dance/Movement Therapy. Ameri-can Journal of Dance Therapy, 18, 29–52.

Lowen, A. (1967). Betrayal of the body. New York: The Macmillan Company.Lowen, A. (1971). The language of the body. New York: The Macmillan Company.North, M. (1972). Personality assessment through movement. London: Macdonald & Evans.Reich, W. (1949). Character-analysis. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Scheflen, A. E. (1964). The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry,

27, 316–331.Walters, S. B. (1996). Principles of kinesic interview and interrogation. Boca Raton: CRC

Press.Walters, S. B., Vorus, N., & Davis, M. (in preparation). Verbal coding guide for credibility

analysis.

Defensive Demeanor Profiles

Documents

Transcript of Defensive Demeanor Profiles