1932

Abstract

The relationship between nonverbal communication and deception continues to attract much interest, but there are many misconceptions about it. In this review, we present a scientific view on this relationship. We describe theories explaining why liars would behave differently from truth tellers, followed by research on how liars actually behave and individuals’ ability to detect lies. We show that the nonverbal cues to deceit discovered to date are faint and unreliable and that people are mediocre lie catchers when they pay attention to behavior. We also discuss why individuals hold misbeliefs about the relationship between nonverbal behavior and deception—beliefs that appear very hard to debunk. We further discuss the ways in which researchers could improve the state of affairs by examining nonverbal behaviors in different ways and in different settings than they currently do.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
2019-01-04
2024-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/70/1/annurev-psych-010418-103135.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Akehurst L, Vrij A 1999. Creating suspects in police interviews. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:192–210
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allwood CM, Granhag PA 1999. Feelings of confidence and the realism of confidence judgments in everyday life. Judgment and Decision Making: Neo-Brunswikian and Process-Tracing Approaches P Juslin, H Montgomery 123–46 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson CA, Lepper MR, Ross L 1980. Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39:1037–49
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Argyle M, Dean J 1965. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28:289–304
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandler R, Grinder J 1979. Frogs Into Princes Moab, UT: Real People Press
  6. Bond CF, DePaulo BM 2006. Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:214–34
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bond CF, Fahey WE 1987. False suspicion and the misperception of deceit. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 26:41–46
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bond CF Jr., Levine TR, Hartwig M 2015. New findings in non-verbal lie detection. Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches PA Granhag, A Vrij, B Verschuere 37–58 Chichester, UK: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandt DR, Miller GR, Hocking JE 1980.a Effects of self-monitoring and familiarity on deception detection. Commun. Q. 28:3–10
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt DR, Miller GR, Hocking JE 1980.b The truth-deception attribution: effects of familiarity on the ability of observers to detect deception. Hum. Commun. Res. 6:99–110
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bull P 2009. Detecting deceit: current issues. International Developments in Investigative Interviewing T Williamson, B Milne, SP Savage 190–206 Devon, UK: Willan Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Buller DB, Burgoon JK 1996. Interpersonal deception theory. Commun. Theory 6:203–42
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Caso L, Maricchiolo F, Bonaiuto M, Vrij A, Mann S 2006. The impact of deception and suspicion on different hand movements. J. Nonverbal Behav. 30:1–19
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA 1999. The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76:893–910
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen J 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences New York: Academic
  16. Darley JM, Gross PH 1983. A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 44:20–33
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DePaulo BM 1992. Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychol. Bull. 111:203–43
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DePaulo BM, Ansfield ME, Bell KL 1996. Theories about deception and paradigms for studying it. Commun. Theory 6:297–310
    [Google Scholar]
  19. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JL, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H 2003. Cues to deception. Psychol. Bull. 129:74–118
    [Google Scholar]
  20. DePaulo BM, Morris WL 2004. Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. Granhag & Strömwall 2004 15–40
  21. Efron D 1941. Gesture and Environment New York: King's Crown
  22. Ekman P 1981. Mistakes when deceiving. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 364:269–78
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ekman P 1985. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage New York: W. W. Norton
  24. Ekman P, Davidson RJ, Friesen WV 1990. The Duchenne smile: emotional expression and brain physiology. II. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:342–53
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ekman P, Friesen WV 1969. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32:88–106
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ekman P, Friesen WV 1972. Hand movements. J. Commun. 22:353–74
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ekman P, Friesen WV, O'Sullivan M 1988. Smiles when lying. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:414–20
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Epley N 2014. Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want New York: Alfred A. Knopf
  29. Feeley TH, deTurck MA, Young MJ 1995. Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Commun. Res. Rep. 12:160–69
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Feldman RS, Forrest JA, Happ BR 2002. Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie more. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:163–70
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fiske ST, Taylor SE 2013. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  32. Frank MG, Ekman P, Friesen WV 1993. Behavioral markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:83–93
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Frank MG, Svetieva E 2012. Lies worth catching involve both emotion and cognition. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 1:131–33
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Frank MG, Yarbrough JD, Ekman P 2006. Investigative interviewing and the detection of deception. Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research and Regulation T Williamson 229–55 Cullompton, UK: Willan Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Freud S 1959. Collected Papers New York: Basic Books
  36. Ganis G, Kosslyn SM, Stose S, Thompson WL, Yurgelun-Todd DA 2003. Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation. Cereb. Cortex 13:830–36
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Garrett BL 2011. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  38. Garrett BL 2015. Contaminated confessions revisited. Va. Law Rev. 101:395–454
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gilbert DT 1991. How mental systems believe. Am. Psychol. 46:107–19
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilovich T, Savitsky K, Medvec VH 1998. The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:332–46
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Glob. Decept. Team. 2006. A world of lies. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 37:60–74
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goffman E 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Anchor, 1st ed..
  43. Gov. Account. Off. 2017. Aviation security: TSA does not have valid evidence supporting most of the revised behavioral indicators used in its behavior detection activities Rep. Gov. Account. Off. Washington, DC: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686001.pdf
  44. Granhag PA, Hartwig M 2008. A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: on the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychol. Crime Law 14:189–200
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Granhag PA, Hartwig M 2015. The Strategic Use of Evidence technique: a conceptual overview. Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches PA Granhag, A Vrij, B Verschuere 231–51 Chichester, UK: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Granhag PA, Strömwall LA 2004. Deception Detection in Forensic Contexts Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  47. Hartwig M, Bond CF 2014. Lie detection from multiple cues: a meta-analysis. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28:661–67
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Luke T 2014. Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: the state of the science. Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications DC Raskin, CR Honts, JC Kircher 1–36 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall L 2007. Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychol. Crime Law 13:213–27
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall L, Doering N 2010. Impression and information management: on the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. Open Criminol. J. 3:10–16
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hauch V, Sporer SL, Michael SW, Meissner CA 2016. Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Commun. Res. 43:283–343
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Henig RM 2006. Looking for the lie. The New York Times Magazine Feb. 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/looking-for-the-lie.html
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hilgendorf EL, Irving B 1981. A decision-making model of confessions. Psychology in Legal Contexts: Applications and Limitations SM Lloyd-Bostock 67–84 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hocking JE, Leathers DG 1980. Nonverbal indicators of deception: a new theoretical perspective. Commun. Monogr. 47:119–31
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Horvath F, Jayne B, Buckley J 1994. Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavioral analysis interviews. J. Forensic Sci. 39:793–807
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Houston P, Floyd M, Carnicero S 2012. Spy the Lie New York: St. Martin's Press
  57. Hurley CM, Griffin DJ, Stefanone MA 2014. Who told you that? Uncovering the source of believed cues to deception. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 6:19–32
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hyman R 1989. The psychology of deception. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 40:133–54
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Inbau FE, Reid JE, Buckley JP, Jayne BC 2013. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 5th ed..
  60. Kassin SM 2005. On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk. Am. Psychol. 60:215–28
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kassin SM, Meissner CA, Norwick RJ 2005. “I'd know a false confession if I saw one”: a comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law Hum. Behav. 29:211–27
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kleinke CL 1986. Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychol. Bull. 100:78–100
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Levine TR 2015. New and improved accuracy findings in deception detection. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6:1–5
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Levine TR, Asada KJK, Park HS 2006. The lying chicken and the gaze avoidant egg: eye contact, deception and causal order. South. J. Commun. 4:401–11
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lewin K 1943. Defining the “field at a given time”.. Psychol. Rev. 50:292–310
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lindquist KA, Wager TD, Kober H, Bliss-Moreau E, Barrett LF 2012. The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review. Behav. Brain Sci. 35:121–43
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mann S, Ewens S, Shaw D, Vrij A, Leal S, Hillman J 2013.a Lying eyes: why liars seek deliberate eye contact. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 20:452–61
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Mann S, Vrij A, Bull R 2004. Detecting true lies: police officers' ability to detect deceit. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:137–49
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Mann S, Vrij A, Fisher R, Robinson M 2008. See no lies, hear no lies: differences in discrimination accuracy and response bias when watching or listening to police suspect interviews. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 22:1062–71
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Mann S, Vrij A, Leal S, Granhag PA, Warmelink L, Forrester D 2012.a Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. J. Nonverbal Behav. 36:205–15
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Mann S, Vrij A, Nasholm E, Warmelink L, Leal S, Forrester D 2012.b The direction of deception: neuro-linguistic programming as a lie detection tool. J. Police Crim. Psychol. 27:160–66
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Mann S, Vrij A, Shaw D, Leal S, Ewens S et al. 2013.b Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 18:324–40
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Mark. Res. 45:633–44
    [Google Scholar]
  74. McNeill D 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  75. Meissner CA, Kassin SM 2002. “He's guilty!”: investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law Hum. Behav. 26:469–80
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Meissner CA, Redlich AD, Michael SW, Evans JR, Camiletti CR et al. 2014. Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. J. Exp. Criminol. 10:459–86
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Meyer P 2010. Lie Spotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception New York: St. Martin's Press
  78. Monin B, Merritt A 2012. Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil M Mikulincer, PR Shaver 167–84 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Moston SJ, Engelberg T 1993. Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing Soc 6:61–75
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nahari G 2018. The applicability of the verifiability approach to the real world. Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Verbal, Behavioral, and Biological Methods P Rosenfeld 329–50 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nahari G, Vrij A, Fisher RP 2012. Does the truth come out in the writing? SCAN as a lie detection tool. Law Hum. Behav. 36:68–76
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Nahari G, Vrij A, Fisher RP 2014. Exploiting liars' verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 19:227–39
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Nat. Res. Counc. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press
  84. Ofshe RJ, Leo RA 1997. The decision to confess falsely: rational choice and irrational action. Denver Univ. Law Rev. 74:979–1112
    [Google Scholar]
  85. O'Sullivan M, Frank MG, Hurley CM, Tiwana J 2009. Police lie detection accuracy: the effect of lie scenario. Law Hum. Behav. 33:542–43
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Park HS, Levine TR, McCornack SA, Morrisson K, Ferrara M 2002. How people really detect lies. Commun. Monogr. 69:144–57
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Patterson ML 1995. Invited article: a parallel process model of nonverbal communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 19:3–29
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Pennebaker JW, Mehl MR, Niederhoffer KG 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: our words, our selves. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:547–77
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Porter S, ten Brinke L 2008. Reading between the lies: identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychol. Sci. 19:508–14
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Rhoads SA, Solomon R 1987. Subconscious rapport building: another approach to interviewing. Police Chief 4:39–41
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J 2003. Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right New York: Berkley
  92. Schubert S 2006. A look tells all. Scientific American Mind Oct. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-look-tells-all/
  93. Sperber D 2009. Culturally transmitted misbeliefs. Behav. Brain Sci. 32:534–35
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Sporer SL, Schwandt B 2006. Paraverbal indicators of deception: a meta-analytic synthesis. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20:421–46
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Stroessner SJ, Plaks JE 2001. Illusory correlation and stereotype formation: tracing the arc of research over a quarter century. Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Failure of Social Cognition GB Moskowitz 247–59 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Strömwall LA, Granhag PA, Hartwig M 2004. Practitioners' beliefs about deception. Granhag & Strömwall 2004 229–50
  97. Strömwall LA, Hartwig M, Granhag PA 2006. To act truthfully: nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychol. Crime Law 12:207–19
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Tesser A 1978. Self-generated attitude change. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol 11:288–338
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Trovillo PV 1939.a A history of lie detection. I. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 29:848–81
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Trovillo PV 1939.b A history of lie detection. II. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 30:104–19
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Vrij A 1995. Behavioral correlates of deception in a simulated police interview. J. Psychol. Interdisc. Appl. 129:15–29
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Vrij A 2008. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2nd ed..
  103. Vrij A 2016. Baselining as a lie detection method. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 30:1112–19
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Vrij A, Akehurst L, Knight S 2006.a Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public's beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 11:297–312
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Vrij A, Edward K, Bull R 2001. People's insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. Br. J. Psychol. 92:373–89
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Vrij A, Fisher R, Blank H 2017.a A cognitive approach to lie detection: a meta-analysis. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 22:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Vrij A, Fisher R, Blank H, Leal S, Mann S 2016. A cognitive approach to elicit nonverbal and verbal cues of deceit. Cheating, Corruption, and Concealment: The Roots of Dishonest Behavior JW van Prooijen, PAM van Lange 284–310 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Vrij A, Fisher R, Mann S, Leal S 2008.a A cognitive load approach to lie detection. J. Invest. Psychol. Offender Profiling 5:39–43
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Vrij A, Granhag PA 2007. Interviewing to detect deception. Offenders’ Memories of Violent Crimes SA Christianson 279–304 Chichester, UK: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Vrij A, Mann S, Fisher R 2006.b An empirical test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview. Law Hum. Behav. 30:329–45
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Vrij A, Mann S, Fisher R, Leal S, Milne B, Bull R 2008.b Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law Hum. Behav. 32:253–65
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Vrij A, Mann S, Leal S, Granhag PA 2010. Getting into the minds of pairs of liars and truth tellers: an examination of their strategies. Open Criminol. J. 3:17–22
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Vrij A, Meissner CA, Fisher RP, Kassin SM, Morgan A III, Kleinman S 2017.b Psychological perspectives on interrogation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12:927–55
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Vrij A, Oliveira J, Hammond A, Ehrlichman H 2015. Spontaneous saccadic eye movement rate as a cue to deceit. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 4:15–19
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Vrij A, Turgeon J 2018. Evaluating credibility of witnesses: Are we instructing jurors on invalid factors. Weiner Law J In press
  116. Walczyk JJ, Roper KS, Seemann E, Humphrey AM 2003. Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: response time as a cue to deception. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 17:755–74
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Weiss B, Feldman RS 2006. Looking good and lying to do it: deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36:1070–86
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wiseman R, Hatfield HRT, Watt C, ten Brinke L, Porter S et al. 2012. The eyes don't have it: lie detection and neuro-linguistic programming. PLOS ONE 7:e40259
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Zuckerman M, DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R 1981. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14:1–59
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error