While science and technology are expanding the database of knowledge about human behavior, there is a persistent gap between science, good science, and actual behavioral analysis work, according to An Gaiser, Managing Director, An Gaiser Consultancy BV in The Netherlands. “I think that the bridge that closes the gap between science and actual behavioral analysis work is not there yet,” says Gaiser.

Making that connection is necessary to achieve a higher form of behavioral intelligence, she suggests, as the disciplines on their own face limitations. Research in a lab, for example, often discounts motivation and intents that are a critical element in real-world interactions. “There is a lot about the practical approach to detection analysis that is quite different from way the science looks at it, especially the difference between the security part of it and focus on nonverbal analysis in scientific research,” explains Gaiser.

At times, this has created an inflated sense of understanding about what we can conclude from behavior alone, she suggests. Micro expressions, or squinting, frowning, or touching one’s nose are hardly sufficient to differentiate between a tourist and a terrorist, for example, nor for concluding that someone is lying. Analyzing a person’s behavior also depends on their baseline, something that can be distorted in an airport or other unusual or stressful settings.

Closing the science-practical gap is also complicated by the willingness of some commercial organizations to sell into the natural desire for easy solutions. “There is great value in scientific research and gaining better understanding of how the brain works and pairing that with what we see in behavior detection, but there is a difference between serious practitioners and those that sell the myths — there is a lot of noise.”

Tools like AI can make a positive difference, but they need to be approached differently, says Gaiser. “AI can be a useful tool in testing scenarios but it’s going the wrong way if we use it the way we are right now,” said Gaiser. “If we accept that we need to use it differently it could help, but we need to acknowledge that communication and interviewing skills are still needed to elicit information.”

Which is all to say that truly effective behavioral analysis from a security perspective in high-stakes settings requires both a combination of inputs and a person practiced in making sense of them in context. An developed the GIN Method, a practical framework integrating behavioral analysis, interaction skills, and nonverbal intelligence.

There is a difference between serious practitioners and those that sell the myths — there is a lot of noise.

“A quote I often think of is ‘why are we still looking for rational solutions for irrational problems,’ because we know behavior is irrational when it comes to stress,” says Gaiser. “We keep pressing to have more AI, more protocols, but what is practical and rational is always changing depending on the context and the way things occur.”

Rather than chasing prescriptive tools to provide answers, Gaiser suggests the security industry’s real pursuit should be focused at developing ourselves, because it is the skills of the interviewer on the day and at the scene — and their ability to flexibly apply true knowledge — that makes the difference.

The critical need for continuous learning and better communication is why Gaiser says she keeps coming back to the annual Behavioral Analysis conference, being held in Poland in September. Gaiser, a renowned behavioral analyst, investigative interviewer, and author will moderate three sessions at the 3-day conference, which features operational case studies, panel discussions, and help keeps delegates in tune with the latest research.

Behavioral analysis from a security perspective in high-stakes settings requires both a combination of inputs and a person practiced in making sense of them in context.

“I really love that the conference helps connects science and practitioners,” says Gaiser. “I also appreciate the psychological safety of the gathering, where it is safe to disagree with each other and communicate openly. It makes it very interesting.”

Gaiser will moderate a Questioning & Deception Detection conference session, “Inside & Online: Concerning Behaviors in the Workplace, Whilst Gaming, and in Internet Dating,” as well as a session on human trafficking, which Gaiser suggests underscores the importance of individualized assessment and a broad understanding of myriad factors that influence behavior.

“A key to good behavioral analysis is actually looking at the right cues, and if it’s a victim, what kind of cues can you see from a victim when there may be cultural differences, especially if we can’t trust cues we think we know, like stress, because it’s different in every culture,” said Gaiser. “Besides be able to detect issues, if you’re a practitioner in the security field, you also need to understand your own impact in the communication with people, what are you displaying, and what your biases are, and how that may influence your perception.”  

Behavioral Analysis 2026 is September 16-18 in Krakow, Poland. To register, visit: https://behaviouralanalysis.com

3 Key Points

• Scientific research offers valuable insights, but real world behavioral analysis demands contextual judgment, interviewing skill, and an understanding of human variability under stress.
• Overreliance on micro expressions, prescriptive tools, or commercial “shortcuts” has created an inflated sense of certainty about what behavior alone can reveal.
• Effective detection work requires continuous learning, self awareness, and a practitioner capable of integrating multiple inputs — not just technology.