Body Language and Lie Detection: Why Common Cues Mislead
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Body language can communicate distress, comfort, interest, hesitation, or attempts to manage an impression. It cannot, on its own, establish whether a person is telling the truth. In a police interview, courtroom, security checkpoint, or ordinary conversation, averted eyes, fidgeting, stiff posture, an unusual smile, and changes in facial expression can all have multiple explanations. The central scientific problem is that visible behavior does not identify the cause behind it.
Forensic psychologists distinguish observed behavior from its interpretation. “The witness avoided eye contact” describes an observation. “The witness was lying” is a conclusion that requires independent evidence. Research on nonverbal deception repeatedly finds that many popular cues are weak, inconsistent, or unrelated to lying, even though people often interpret them with great confidence. See the major review by Vrij, Hartwig, and Granhag (2019).
Can you tell if someone is lying by their body language?
Usually, not with dependable accuracy. Researchers have documented some average behavioral differences between deceptive and truthful communications, but those differences rarely provide a reliable decision rule for an individual person. The presence or absence of a gesture does not diagnose deception.
The best-known meta-analysis of unaided human lie judgments combined 206 research documents and judgments by 24,483 observers. Overall accuracy averaged 54%, compared with 50% for balanced guessing. Participants correctly labeled 47% of lies and 61% of truths. This result summarizes the studied judgments; it is not a validated 54% accuracy rate for every detective, interview, lie, or real-world case. Bond and DePaulo (2006).
A later synthesis of 144 samples, 9,380 speakers, and 26,866 messages reported that statistical combinations of multiple behavioral cues could classify deceptive and truthful messages with accuracy approaching 70%. The calculation involved modeling patterns across cues rather than an ordinary observer intuitively decoding one gesture. It therefore does not contradict the 54% finding and does not license assigning that accuracy to a particular officer, technique, or individual case. Hartwig and Bond (2014).
What counts as body language in lie detection?
Nonverbal behavior includes eye gaze, facial movements, blinking, gestures, posture, head movements, bodily orientation, visible tension, and aspects of physical behavior during speech. Paraverbal behavior includes features such as speaking rate, pauses, pitch, and vocal quality. Investigators may observe both, but observing a behavior is different from proving that it indicates falsehood.
A deception judgment also requires a defined target. Is the person deliberately communicating a proposition they believe false? Are they mistaken, uncertain, frightened, concealing a private feeling, trying to remember accurately, or responding to a threatening interaction? The same outward behavior may occur in all of these states.
This distinction matters in forensic settings. A witness can be inaccurate without intending to mislead. A suspect may deliberately withhold information without making a false factual assertion. An interviewee may be anxious and truthful at the same time. A behavioral cue cannot directly settle these questions.
Why common body-language cues mislead
The same movement has many possible causes
Someone may look away because they are remembering a scene, monitoring social contact, uncomfortable with intense gaze, distracted by noise, fatigued, distressed, or responding to cultural norms. Restless hands may reflect anxiety, impatience, medication effects, sensory regulation, cold, pain, or ordinary habit. An apparently controlled face may reflect concentration, social masking, emotional regulation, or simply the person’s expressive style.
A reliable deception indicator would need to discriminate lying from these alternatives. Most popular gestures fail that test. The large review of 158 possible cues found that many showed negligible or weak relationships with deception, with substantial variation across tasks and situations. DePaulo and colleagues (2003).
Arousal is not deception
Traditional body-language advice assumes that lying causes nervousness and that nervousness produces detectable bodily signs. Deception sometimes carries emotional or cognitive demands, but so do truthful denials under suspicion, public speaking, trauma-related recollection, unfamiliar questioning, and fear of being misunderstood.
Stress is a psychological state, while deception is a property of a communication act. Treating one as proof of the other confuses two separate constructs. There is no one-to-one mapping from sweating, trembling, facial tension, or rapid breathing to a false statement. Vrij, Hartwig, and Granhag (2019).
People try to manage how they appear
A person who knows they are being evaluated may consciously maintain eye contact, sit still, smile, or answer rapidly in an effort to seem credible. A truthful interviewee may use the same strategies. The resulting performance reflects social expectations and impression management as well as any underlying mental state.
This creates a self-defeating rule: both unusually little movement and unusually much movement can be interpreted as suspicious. When opposite observations are treated as proof of the same claim, the rule cannot be meaningfully falsified. The review by Vrij and colleagues describes the weakness of nonverbal cues and the persistence of misconceptions.
Observers see what their suspicions direct them to see
Once an interviewer believes that looking away signifies dishonesty, each glance can become apparent confirmation. The same action may be ignored when a favored witness performs it. This is an interpretive problem: judgment can depend on the observer’s expectations, the person’s role, and the surrounding narrative rather than the diagnostic value of the behavior.
A video can preserve movements, but it cannot remove interpretive bias. Decision quality improves when the observer records the actual behavior, identifies alternative explanations, and tests claims against evidence instead of attaching a deception label immediately.
Eye contact: does looking away mean someone is lying?
Avoiding eye contact is one of the most familiar folk theories about dishonesty. Controlled research does not support a simple rule that liars reliably avert their gaze. Some individuals maintain additional eye contact because they expect observers to be suspicious of looking away; others avert their gaze for reasons unrelated to deception.
The idea that looking up and right reveals a lie while looking up and left indicates truth has been tested directly. Across three studies, including coded eye movements and a test of training in the supposed pattern, researchers found no support for the claimed relationship. Wiseman and colleagues (2012), PLOS ONE.
Eye-contact norms also vary by social environment and individual communication style. In an investigative interview, an instruction to “look me in the eye” risks becoming a demand for a preferred performance rather than a way to obtain accurate evidence.
Fidgeting, shifting, and nervous gestures
Foot tapping, hand rubbing, touching the face, crossing the arms, shifting in a chair, and manipulating objects are often presented as signs that a person is hiding something. None has a demonstrated interpretation that uniquely identifies a lie.
If an investigator records that a person started tapping a foot when a particular subject was introduced, the change may generate a neutral follow-up question. It cannot establish why the change occurred. Changes may be produced by the wording of the question, fatigue, temperature, pain, discomfort, or the interviewer’s conduct.
It is especially misleading to infer deception from a person becoming unusually still. Popular advice sometimes claims liars fidget and sometimes claims liars freeze to avoid leaking emotion. Such opposing stereotypes illustrate why behavior must be evaluated with a testable theory and independent outcomes, rather than being fitted to a conclusion after the event.
Facial expressions, microexpressions, and hidden emotions
Can a facial expression expose a lie?
A face may convey emotional information. The relevant inferential chain, however, contains several separate steps: identifying a facial movement, inferring an emotion, inferring its cause, and finally inferring whether a particular factual statement is knowingly false. Each additional step introduces uncertainty.
Fear can arise because someone committed an act, because they are accused unfairly, or because they fear an authority figure. Anger may reflect being challenged, a genuine grievance, or a deliberate performance. A smile can express politeness, embarrassment, relief, nervousness, or amusement. The expression itself does not identify the truth value of the statement.
What about microexpressions?
Microexpressions are brief facial movements studied in emotion research. Researchers have observed rapid expression changes during tasks involving genuine, masked, or simulated emotion. In one laboratory investigation, microexpressions appeared in a minority of participants and a small fraction of the coded expressions. These results concern the expression and concealment of emotion under specific experimental conditions; they do not validate a universal microexpression-based lie detector. Porter and ten Brinke (2008).
A study of facial-expression training found that participants trained with specialized software improved recognition of some emotions but did not show a significant improvement in deception detection relative to controls. Emotion recognition and lie detection were separable outcomes. Deception detection and emotion recognition study.
Microexpression coding may be appropriate in a particular research design, provided the method and question are specified. Claims that a brief facial flash proves guilt, concealment, or lying go far beyond the validated evidence.
Blinking, pupil changes, sweating, and other physical signs
Blinking and physiological arousal can change under emotional or cognitive demands. Such changes have context-dependent determinants and can occur during truthful communication. The studies reviewed by DePaulo and colleagues and Vrij and colleagues do not support using ordinary visible arousal signs as decisive proof of deception.
Claims about pupil dilation or changes in breathing also need to specify the measurement procedure, lighting, medical and environmental factors, and the decision rule. Interpreting an imprecise visual impression as if it were a validated physiological test gives the observation more evidentiary weight than it warrants.
This article addresses ordinary bodily behavior and visible signs. Instrument-based polygraph testing raises a separate set of measurement, validity, error-rate, and admissibility questions; it has its own planned article in the EN-58 registry.
Crossed arms, posture, pointing, and “defensive” gestures
Crossed arms are frequently called defensive; leaning away is interpreted as withdrawal; leaning forward as involvement; a finger point as aggression; and open palms as honesty. These labels compress a complex interaction into an assumed mental state.
Posture and movement can have communicative meaning in context. Their meanings depend on interpersonal distance, health, comfort, temperature, cultural conventions, the immediate exchange, and individual habits. Even when a gesture expresses discomfort or disagreement, that expression does not establish that a separate factual account is deceptive.
Investigators and expert witnesses should distinguish the descriptive claim, such as “the person turned away when shown a photograph,” from the causal explanation, such as “the person turned away because the photograph exposed a lie.” The latter needs independent support.
Does changing body language reveal a lie?
A within-person change can be more informative about a changing situation than a static stereotype, yet it still lacks a unique explanation. Suppose a witness speaks calmly about the beginning of an event but becomes tense when asked about a specific moment. That observation supports the limited conclusion that the exchange changed in some way relevant to the person’s behavior.
Before inferring anything else, an interviewer should examine the question itself. Was it confusing, emotionally charged, unexpected, leading, difficult to answer, or associated with a traumatic recollection? Was the person interrupted? Did the interview conditions change? Was the person already tired?
The popular notion of establishing someone’s “baseline” and spotting deviations is not equivalent to a validated individual lie-detection test. A baseline may improve familiarity with someone's mannerisms, but a deviation cannot be converted into a probability of lying without reliable empirical validation.
What decades of research actually measure
Individual cues versus combinations of cues
The meta-analysis by DePaulo et al. (2003) aggregated 1,338 estimates across 158 potential behavioral cues. Some average associations emerged, including differences in how forthcoming or compelling speakers appeared, but many cues were weak or absent. A statistical difference across groups does not establish a dependable threshold for identifying a single deceptive statement.
In Hartwig and Bond (2014), combining multiple behavioral features yielded higher modeled classification performance. Such results show that group-level patterns can contain information under the conditions studied. They leave open difficult questions about prospective validation, measurement consistency, independent samples, observer training, changing populations, and real-world error costs.
Human judgment versus predictive modeling
The 54% estimate from Bond and DePaulo (2006) measures people evaluating communications unaided. The approximately 70% estimate from Hartwig and Bond (2014) concerns statistical patterns derived from multiple observed features. These are different tasks, different prediction procedures, and different performance measures.
Neither number gives an individual investigator a personal success rate. Neither figure can be applied directly to a court case without accounting for the relevant population, base rate, sampling, and measurement conditions.
The problem of false positives
A false positive occurs when a truthful person is judged deceptive. A false negative occurs when a deceptive person is judged truthful. Even a method that discriminates better than chance can produce many false accusations when lying is uncommon or when the decision threshold favors suspicion.
Consider a purely hypothetical screening system used in a setting where 10% of statements are deceptive. If sensitivity were 70% and specificity 70%, then among 1,000 statements there would be approximately 70 true positives, 270 false positives, 30 false negatives, and 630 true negatives. Only 70 of the 340 positive alerts would correspond to deception, about 21%. These figures illustrate base-rate arithmetic, not measured performance of any body-language method.
Calibration asks whether estimated probabilities match observed frequencies. Discrimination asks whether a method separates groups. A study reporting overall classification accuracy without sensitivity, specificity, calibration, and external validation is insufficient for high-stakes screening or evidentiary use.
Laboratory versus investigative settings
Experimental studies can establish whether researchers observe a controlled relationship under specified conditions. Real investigations differ in stakes, access to independent facts, recording quality, interviewer behavior, language, incentives, relationship history, and the consequences of accusation. Real cases may also lack a trustworthy independent determination of truth.
A systematic review of deception research provides a scientific basis for skepticism toward simple nonverbal rules, but transfer from a laboratory video to a particular suspect, child witness, or courtroom event still requires justification. Vrij, Hartwig, and Granhag (2019).
Expert opinion, disagreement, and the limits of consensus
Contemporary researchers do not agree on a universal list of dependable cues. A survey of expert perspectives published online in 2023 and appearing in the 2025 journal volume found limited consensus about many proposed behavioral indicators and warned against policies built on claims that lack shared empirical support. This means broad assertions that “experts know exactly how liars move” misrepresent the state of the field. What Have We Learned About Cues to Deception?.
Expert agreement is not, by itself, a validity test. The strongest assessment still requires clearly defined behavior, reproducible measurement, independent known-truth outcomes, appropriate populations, and transparent error estimates.
When behavior detection enters real security policy
A concrete illustration comes from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s behavioral screening activities. In a 2017 assessment, the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined evidence provided to support 36 revised behavioral indicators. It found that valid evidence was lacking for 28 of the 36 indicators. That is a finding about the reviewed airport-screening program and its evidentiary support, not a general measurement of every form of investigative interviewing. U.S. GAO, GAO-17-608R (2017).
Security applications are particularly sensitive to base rates and consequences. If a behavior-based system generates frequent false alarms, a large number of innocent people may be referred for additional scrutiny. The system may appear active and productive without having shown that the observations validly identify the intended threat.
Importantly, detecting a stressful or unusual behavior is a different target from detecting a deliberately false statement; predicting future harmful behavior is another target again. These outcomes require separate validation. An indicator for discomfort cannot simply be relabeled an indicator of deception, dangerousness, criminal responsibility, or guilt.
Cultural context, disability, and fairness
Neurodivergent communication is not an indicator of deception
Autistic people, people with ADHD, and others can have social and sensory communication styles that differ from an observer’s expectations. Eye contact, facial expressiveness, gestures, speech rhythm, and response timing vary within and across groups. It would be a serious interpretive error to treat atypical presentation as a signal of dishonesty.
In research on mock jurors evaluating autistic child witnesses, information about autism affected credibility ratings differently for different witnesses. The study illustrates how perceivers’ interpretations of presentation can influence perceived credibility; it does not supply a diagnostic rule for witnesses. Crane and colleagues (2020).
The appropriate investigative question is what an individual knows, perceived, remembers, and can explain under accessible conditions. Where needed, communication accommodations and qualified specialist input support fair information gathering. Neither disability status nor an observer’s impression establishes deception.
Culture, language, and power change the interaction
Patterns of gaze, deference, interpersonal distance, gesture, silence, and emotional display are socially learned and situational. Interpreters, language proficiency, authority differences, and culturally unfamiliar procedures can alter behavior in an interview. A rule developed from one group may not work in another.
The requirement for fairness is empirical as well as ethical: a behavioral rule should demonstrate validity across its intended populations, including subgroup error analysis, before it affects consequential decisions. Without such evidence, differences in presentation may be mistaken for differences in honesty.
Trauma and fear can shape demeanor
Witnesses and suspects may respond to stressful events or questioning through agitation, a flat presentation, laughter, avoidance, excessive compliance, or silence. Those behaviors require contextual interpretation and cannot establish a diagnosis, an offense history, or a lie. The person’s explanation, interview circumstances, and independent facts deserve attention.
In high-stakes interviews, the cost of misinterpretation may include repeated accusatory questioning, a false suspicion becoming an investigative anchor, or unfair treatment of a person who communicates atypically.
The courtroom problem: demeanor is not a scientific test
Judges and juries routinely encounter testimony accompanied by tone, facial expression, hesitation, and eye contact. These behaviors can influence judgments about credibility. The psychological literature establishes that such impressions can be powerful while evidence for many intuitive deception rules is limited. The two facts must be considered together.
An attorney may argue about contradictions and corroboration under applicable procedural rules. A forensic expert must identify the actual scientific basis and the limits of any behavioral interpretation. Neither a clinician’s diagnosis nor a gesture is a legal finding that a witness lied or a defendant is guilty.
U.S. rules about admissibility, expert testimony, credibility instructions, and treatment of demeanor vary by court and jurisdiction. Other countries apply different procedures and evidentiary standards. Psychological observations do not override legal requirements or the court’s responsibility to evaluate the record.
Why investigators should prioritize verifiable information
The more defensible question is not “Which gesture proves this person is lying?” but “Which statements can be tested against independently obtained evidence?” A carefully conducted interview can elicit a detailed account, allow the interviewee to correct misunderstandings, explore ambiguities, and identify specific propositions that can be checked.
Contemporary investigative-interviewing guidance recommends planned, rapport-based, noncoercive information gathering. The 2024 United Nations Manual on Investigative Interviewing for Criminal Investigation describes a systematic approach emphasizing lawful and effective interviewing. This is guidance for interview practice, rather than evidence that any particular interview method yields infallible truth judgments.
Speech content may sometimes supply more relevant information than passive observation of demeanor, particularly when statements can be compared with reliable external evidence. Vrij (2019) describes a research shift from nonverbal stereotypes toward verbal information and active interviewing. Evaluating interview methods and deceptive speech in depth belongs to the neighboring EN-58 articles devoted to those specific questions.
Practical principles for professional interviews
An interviewer should begin with an open invitation to describe events, listen without imposing an account, and follow up on specific details. Separate what the person reports from what the interviewer infers. Preserve the exact language of significant statements when possible and clarify uncertainty before treating apparent discrepancies as meaningful.
Relevant inconsistencies can indicate mistaken recall, misunderstanding, deliberate concealment, or a change in the account. They should be investigated rather than diagnosed from posture. Any conclusion about intentional deception requires attention to the underlying evidence and alternative explanations.
The American Psychological Association’s 2022 resolution on interrogation of criminal suspects documents concerns about coercive practices and false-confession risks. A suspicion based solely on demeanor should never substitute for proper investigative safeguards.
Can training make someone better at reading lies?
Training can improve the ability to recognize specified movements or categorize some facial expressions. That is a narrower skill than correctly identifying false statements. The facial-expression training study found improved recognition of certain emotions but no statistically significant deception-detection benefit.
Training programs should be evaluated by independent outcomes, not by claims of expertise, testimonials, or the confidence participants feel after a course. A sound evaluation would include a randomized comparison or appropriate controls, blinded scoring, realistic tasks, pre-specified accuracy measures, and assessment across populations.
When a course promises that a single gesture, eye movement, or microexpression “always” reveals lying, its central claim conflicts with the broader research. Skilled interviewing, evidence preservation, and disciplined hypothesis testing are more defensible professional priorities.
Can AI read deception from faces and movements?
Researchers have developed machine-learning models that analyze facial expressions, head motion, eye movements, voice, or combinations of features. A model may perform well on a constrained dataset while failing on new cameras, populations, lighting, interview conditions, or real-world truth labels.
A 2023 systematic review of machine-learning deception detection found a heterogeneous research landscape involving differing datasets, algorithms, and features. Such a literature does not establish that any currently available facial-analysis model can reliably decide whether a specific witness or suspect is lying in a legal case. Constâncio and colleagues (2023).
For a forensic claim, investigators should demand independent external validation, transparent outcome definitions, error rates, subgroup fairness analysis, appropriate calibration, documentation of training data, and a clear explanation of how the model’s output relates to the legal question. An algorithmic risk score or deception label cannot be treated as evidence of criminal guilt.
How to avoid being fooled by a body-language claim
A useful way to evaluate any proposed cue is to ask five questions. What exact behavior is being measured? Does it occur more often among liars than truth tellers under a comparable situation? How large and consistent is the difference? What error rates occur in a truly independent test? And what alternative causes might generate the same behavior?
A claim deserves less weight when it relies on dramatic footage, retrospective interpretation of a famous suspect, or anecdotes selected after the truth was already known. Such examples do not show how many truthful people displayed the same behavior or how many deceptive people did not.
If a purported expert labels every small pause as evidence of concealment but ignores pauses when the speaker turns out truthful, the analysis is not a reliable prospective test. It is storytelling attached to recorded behavior.
Common myths about body language and lies
Myth: Liars avoid eye contact
The relevant empirical findings do not support reliable eye avoidance as a universal lie cue. Gaze also depends on culture, attention, comfort, neurotype, and social demands. Vrij et al. (2019).
Myth: Looking in one direction reveals whether a memory is invented
Three studies found no support for the popular eye-direction rule associated with neuro-linguistic programming. Wiseman et al. (2012).
Myth: Fidgeting means guilt
Restless movements have numerous possible explanations and do not constitute an established indicator of lying, much less a finding of guilt. DePaulo et al. (2003).
Myth: Microexpressions always expose the truth
Some rapid facial events have been documented during emotion-related tasks, but emotional leakage and actual deception are different constructs. Research has not validated microexpressions as an infallible forensic lie test. Porter and ten Brinke (2008).
Myth: Professionals can identify lies by instinct
Training, experience, and confidence do not automatically produce high lie-detection accuracy. Under the conditions combined in a major meta-analysis, unaided observers averaged 54% accuracy. Bond and DePaulo (2006).
Myth: A cluster of suspicious cues proves a lie
A validated statistical model that combines cues requires a specified outcome, controlled measurement, and external testing. It is different from adding up a collection of ambiguous gestures and declaring a person deceptive. Hartwig and Bond (2014).
Frequently asked questions
What is the most reliable body-language sign of lying?
Research has not established a single everyday gesture, gaze pattern, posture, or facial expression that can reliably identify lying across people and situations. A behavior may justify a question, but it cannot decide the answer. Forensic decisions should prioritize independently testable information.
Do liars blink more?
Blinking varies with context and task demands. No universal blink-rate cutoff has been validated as an everyday lie test. An observed increase or decrease in blinking cannot by itself establish intentional falsehood.
Do liars touch their nose or mouth?
Touching the face can accompany discomfort, habit, irritation, thinking, or self-regulation. Treating these actions as a lie signal is an overinterpretation of nonspecific behavior.
Can someone lie while holding eye contact?
Yes. Eye contact is a social behavior, not a truth detector. A deceptive person can sustain it; a truthful person may avoid it.
Are microexpressions scientifically real?
Brief facial movements and expressions can be studied and recorded. Whether a particular fleeting movement can validly diagnose intentional deception is a separate question, and the present evidence does not support the popular claim of reliable microexpression lie reading.
Can anxiety make an innocent person look deceptive?
Yes. Fear of accusation, stress, social discomfort, or difficulty with questioning can produce behavior that an observer stereotypes as suspicious. The investigator should assess the person’s account and the situation without equating distress with deception.
Is there a baseline technique for detecting lies?
Becoming familiar with a person’s usual mannerisms can help describe changes, but there is no validated universal rule converting a baseline deviation into proof of lying. A change may reflect the question, environment, emotion, or other circumstances.
Can a video reveal lies better than listening?
In the Bond and DePaulo meta-analysis, observers were generally more accurate with audible information than visible behavior alone. A recording can document words and demeanor, but its interpretation still requires evidence-based reasoning and attention to bias. Bond and DePaulo (2006).
Can a judge or jury use body language to decide credibility?
Demeanor may be observed in legal proceedings, but popular lie-detection stereotypes have a weak scientific foundation. Specific procedural standards and rules about credibility or expert evidence depend on jurisdiction. The legal decision should be grounded in the admissible record and applicable law.
Does atypical eye contact mean a witness is unreliable?
No. Variations in eye contact and expressive style do not establish accuracy, honesty, or dishonesty. Research on autistic child witnesses shows that observers’ perceptions may depend on information and presentation, underscoring the need to distinguish witness credibility impressions from the actual informational quality of the account. Crane et al. (2020).
Can AI or software prove deception from a face?
Research models exist, but a benchmark result does not demonstrate legal-grade validity for actual people and cases. Independent validation, calibration, fairness, and known error rates would be necessary before a high-stakes claim could be justified. Constâncio et al. (2023).
If body language is unreliable, should investigators ignore it?
No. They may observe and accurately document behavior, use it to manage the interaction, and ask respectful follow-up questions. The distinction is between treating a movement as contextual information and treating it as a reliable indicator of deception.
What the evidence supports
The strongest conclusion is that body language has communicative value but limited diagnostic value for detecting lies. Scientific studies identify some average behavioral patterns, but individual cues are generally weak and can be explained by multiple psychological and situational processes. Real-world use requires well-designed validation and transparent error analysis.
In forensic and legal contexts, the sounder route is to collect a detailed account, preserve what was actually said, examine corroboration and contradictions, consider alternative explanations, and follow noncoercive interviewing standards. Suspicions based on facial expressions, eye movements, or gestures should remain hypotheses until independently tested.
Related articles
Social Anxiety in Conversations: Self-Focus, Silence, and Fear of Judgment explains a non-forensic psychological context in which hesitation and gaze can be misread.
Social Anxiety vs Autism: Social Fear, Social Communication, and Diagnostic Context provides additional context for interpreting different communication styles without drawing unsupported conclusions.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. APA official policy.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.
Constâncio, A. S., Tsunoda, D. F., Nunes Silva, H. F., da Silveira, J. M., & Carvalho, D. R. (2023). Deception detection with machine learning: A systematic review and statistical analysis. PLOS ONE, 18(2), e0281323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281323.
Crane, L., et al. (2020). Mock juror perceptions of child witnesses on the autism spectrum: The impact of providing diagnostic labels and information about autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3700-0.
Curtis, D. A. (2021). Deception detection and emotion recognition: Investigating F.A.C.E. software. Psychotherapy Research, 31(6), 802–816. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33158396/.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.
Government Accountability Office. (2017). Aviation security: TSA does not have valid evidence supporting most of the revised behavioral indicators used in its behavior detection activities (GAO-17-608R). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-608r.
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3052.
Luke, T. J., Mac Giolla, E., Memon, A., Landström, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kassin, S. (2025). What have we learned about cues to deception? A survey of expert opinions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 31(5), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292504.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02116.x.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, & Department of Peace Operations. (2024). Manual on investigative interviewing for criminal investigation. Official UN publication.
Vrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3457.
Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., ten Brinke, L., Porter, S., Couper, S.-L., & Rankin, C. (2012). The eyes don’t have it: Lie detection and neuro-linguistic programming. PLOS ONE, 7(7), e40259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040259.