Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection

Abstract

SummaryThe question of whether discernible differences exist between liars and truth tellers has interested professional lie detectors and laypersons for centuries. In this article we discuss whether people can detect lies when observing someone's nonverbal behavior or analyzing someone's speech. An article about detecting lies by observing nonverbal and verbal cues is overdue. Scientific journals regularly publish overviews of research articles regarding nonverbal and verbal cues to deception, but they offer no explicit guidance about what lie detectors should do and should avoid doing to catch liars. We will present such guidance in the present article.The article consists of two parts. The first section focuses on pitfalls to avoid and outlines the major factors that lead to failures in catching liars. Sixteen reasons are clustered into three categories: (a) a lack of motivation to detect lies (because accepting a fabrication might sometimes be more tolerable or pleasant than understanding the truth), (b) difficulties associated with lie detection, and (c) common errors made by lie detectors. We will argue that the absence of nonverbal and verbal cues uniquely related to deceit (akin Pinocchio's growing nose), the existence of typically small differences between truth tellers and liars, and the fact that liars actively try to appear credible contribute to making lie detection a difficult task. Other factors that add to difficulty is that lies are often embedded in truths, that lie detectors often do not receive adequate feedback about their judgments and therefore cannot learn from their mistakes, and that some methods to detect lies violate conversation rules and are therefore difficult to apply in real life. The final factor to be discussed in this category is that some people are just very good liars.The common errors lie detectors make that we have identified are examining the wrong cues (in part, because professionals are taught these wrong cues); placing too great an emphasis on nonverbal cues (in part, because training encourages such emphasis); tending to too-readily interpret certain behaviors, particularly signs of nervousness, as diagnostic of deception; placing too great an emphasis on simplistic rules of thumb; and neglecting inter-and intrapersonal differences. We also discuss two final errors: that many interview strategies advocated by police manuals can impair lie detection, and that professionals tend to overestimate their ability to detect deceit.The second section of this article discusses opportunities for maximizing one's chances of detecting lies and elaborates strategies for improving one's lie-detection skills. Within this section, we first provide five recommendations for avoiding the common errors in detecting lies that we identified earlier in the article. Next, we discuss a relatively recent wave of innovative lie-detection research that goes one step further and introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and t...

An Investigation on the Detectability of Deceptive Intent about Flying through Verbal Deception Detection

“…We conclude with suggestions for a novel framework on semi-interactive information elicitation. With an increased demand for security systems like airport border control, researchers and practitioners alike have identified the need for applications to detect deception on a large scale (Honts & Hartwig, 2014;Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). For example, the context of airport border control excludes many tools used in deception research due to their limited applicability.…”

Effects of the duration of expressions on the recognition of microexpressions

“…Today, there are two main research groups in this field: one led by Paul EKMAN and including Mark G. FRANK and Maureen O′SULLIVAN, and another led by Porter (Porter and ten Brinke, 2008). Although few peer-reviewed studies about microexpressions have been published (Porter and ten Brinke, 2008;Vrij et al, 2010;Matsumoto and Hwang, 2011), applications of microexpressions seem to be booming in the USA (Hoffman, 2008;Mervis, 2009).…”

Truth and Deception in Informants' Accounts of Criminal Admissions

“…In fact, many empirically supported cues to deception are also signs of cognitive load (Mann, Vrij, & Bull, 2002;Vrij & Mann, 2003). Possible reasons why cognitive load is elevated during acts of deception compared to truth-telling include: liars require greater cognitive resources; liars are less likely to take their self-presentation for granted; liars are more concerned with how convincing they are; liars focus on the act of role playing; liars find suppressing the truth to be cognitively demanding; and liars find formulating a lie is less automatic than reporting the truth (Leal, Vrij, Fisher, & van Hooff, 2008;Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010).…”

“…Thus, these incentives were deemed sufficient for this study. interview, which is more likely to produce reports that distinguish liars from truth tellers, than an accusatory-style interview (Vrij et al, 2010).…”

“…All in all, when situations arise in which emotionality, cognitive load, and attempted control are elevated, the task of distinguishing liars from truth-tellers should be facilitated by the presence of behaviours signalling their honesty (Vrij et al, 2010).…”