Non-Verbal Communication in Detecting Deception

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations
References

Abstract

Communication forms the basics of human interaction, as humans are social beings. With globalization, the distance from one culture to another has decreased significantly, increasing social interaction. This has made people relate based on trust. However, dishonesty has also gained momentum, and despite being perceived insignificant, it has noteworthy consequences. The current study investigates the ways of detecting deceit through the use of nonverbal cues, verbal cues, and use of psychological correlations. This study is limited by the nature of secondary sources used. The theories utilized in this research include the multi-factor theory of nonverbal cues to deception and social psychological approaches such as interpersonal and contextual theories. Research shows that deception is a social problem that requires carefully fabrication of a story and provides the need for using non-verbal cues to detect lies. However, the method has errors such as the challenging nature of the lie, misinterpretation of non-verbal cues, use of heretics, and personal differences. Consequently, techniques like behavior analysis interview, baseline approach, and neurolinguistic programming help detect deception.

Introduction

Communication is an aspect that has largely increased universally as an outcome of globalization. For this reason, the distance between different cultures and individuals has significantly decreased, which has made it easy for social interactions. Therefore, it is common for people to associate themselves with individuals from different backgrounds. Individuals mostly engage in relations of truthful nature since they easily trust others. Nonetheless, people are always caught in the act of deception, which is generally regarded to be harmless. However, some acts of dishonesty can lead to severe consequences. There are three ways of catching a liar, first is by using nonverbal cues. The second is by studying or examining the verbal cues of an individual. Lastly, deceit can be determined by measuring physiological correlates using heart rate or a Galvanic Skin Response (GSR).

The detection of deceit has become a very vital success aspect of countries, private individuals, and even authorities. Since deception is present in every part of the social community, this kind of information can be helpful where immediate decision-making is required regardless of the cultures of the individuals. Moreover, the interest regarding nonverbal cues differs with specific cultures. This is to mean that a signal may contain various meanings depending on the cultural context, as different cultures influence the way individuals communicate with each other.

People relate with others differently and display different nonverbal behavior during the communication process due to their diverse backgrounds. In addition, people elicit different nonverbal cues or behavior as an outcome of a need, desire or want. Therefore, every individual contains different nonverbal cues of communication. Moreover, each culture contains unique nonverbal behaviors which can sometimes be only interpreted or decoded and understood in the same culture which makes it challenging to identify deception. To be able to identify their deception cues, it is necessary for one to understand the behaviors of these individuals within their normal situations where they are not engaging in deceit or have no interest or motivation to deceive.

Statement of Problem

Deceptive acts are usually considered harmless; however, they have severe consequences.

According to Vrij et al. (2019), acts of deceit can cause physical harm, emotional damage, or even force someone from their fortune. In addition, deceptive acts can result in the conviction of innocent individuals, exoneration of the guilty ones, and even lead to terrorist attacks. This brings forth the significance of determining truths in situations using nonverbal communication which is guided by behavioral cues which cannot be easily manipulated.

Definition of terms

Nonverbal communication is a type of communication that does not involve the use of words. It can also be defined as the non-linguistic, informative behavioral and appearance aspects such as body movements or features, personal distance, touch, and paralanguage (Hall et al., 2019). Moreover, nonverbal communication can occur on an unconscious or conscious level, can be intentional or not, and mostly include visual indicators.

Nonverbal cues are features or characteristics related to the appearance of an individual, which an observer can respond to or even draw conclusions from them. These aspects include facial expressions, posture, gestures, eye contact, interpersonal space, body temperature, body language, and movement (Hall et al., 2019). In addition, nonverbal cues can be defined as behaviors that express attitudes, articulate one’s emotions, display an individual’s personality as well as supplement and enhance speech in managing the cues or behaviors of interactions among groups and people.

Deception is refereed to an action taken with a deliberate attempt to misguide another individual’s understanding of a specific situation. Moreover, (Vrij et al., 2019) referred to deception as an activity that is successfully or unsuccessfully carried out on purpose without notification to generate a different belief in others that the source reflects as false. Furthermore, deception can be considered as an instance where the communicator tries to intentionally transmit false information by manipulation, concealment, and fabrication with the goal of making others to trust it to be true (Mapala, 2020; Levine, 2022). Similarly, deception can be defined as an intentional deed that is committed by a sender with the objective of altering and misleading the recipients’ beliefs and putting them at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, deception cues are defined as aimed, visible and specific behaviors that are directly linked with the actions that liars take and are used to reliably and constantly differentiate between deceiving and truthful communications. Deception cues point out that an act of dishonesty or deceit may be transpiring or happening without specifying directly on the concealed information’s nature (Mapala, 2020; Brennen & Magnussen, 2020). These cues include fidgeting, constant changes in body posture, gaze avoidance, agitation as well as leg and foot movements.

The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) can be referred to as the neural pathway that controls involuntary reactions. In response to a perceived source of strain, the activation of the sympathetic nervous system can cause a rise in the levels of adrenaline as well as cortisol which will aid in preparing for the flight or fight response (Looff et al., 2018). This means that the SNS helps in behavioral activation as a response to a perceived threat and can lead to increased production of sweat and heart rate, which are all cues to deception.

Nonverbal leakage refers to a situation that results from nonverbal behaviors that occur when an individual tries to take control of their physical as well as cognitive arousal. This is to mean that significant changes can be observed in the face, especially when an emotion is aroused. This can make an individual try to control the behaviors they display in an attempt to maintain their story’s credibility (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Therefore, this can cause a leak in the information that the individual is attempting to conceal.

Encoding can be defined as the creation of information or messages that an individual may be interested in communicating to others. On the other hand, decoding means deciphering or interpreting the information sent by the message’s source. In nonverbal communication, encoding refers to the behavioral cues that individuals send during communication (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). In contrast, decoding in nonverbal communication refers to recognizing the signals and behaviors displayed, such as facial expressions and body language, and identifying their meaning in relation to the speech content provided.

Other important terms in this study are narcissism and Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is a personality feature accompanied by extreme manipulation in gaining an upper advantage over others. In addition, Machiavellianism is a concept used to describe individuals that are self-centered, cynical, and liable to being deceptive (Lyons et al., 2017). On the other hand, narcissism is a personality characteristic that depicts a person who is egocentric and lacks empathy towards others. Narcissistic people do not put other individuals into consideration due to their selfish nature.

Limitation

This study is entirely based on secondary data collection sources. This qualifies as a limitation of the current study as negatively impacts the research outcome due to generalizability. Moreover, the sources used in the paper did not provide adequate evidence on the appropriate diagnostic tools that lie catchers can use in deciphering acts of deceit in specific situations. Furthermore, there is limited recent research on the topic which makes it challenging to come up with solid conclusion on the effect of nonverbal communication in detecting deception.

Theoretical Framework

The association or relationship between deception and nonverbal behavior can be explained in several theories. One such theory is the multi-factor theory which explains the cognitive theories, emotional theories and behavioral control. Social Psychological Approaches: Interpersonal and Contextual Theories are also used to explain the link between deception and nonverbal behavior (Vrij et al., 2019). These include Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT), self-presentational theory, and moral psychology theory.

The Multi-Factor Theory of Nonverbal Cues to Deception

The multi-factor theory is one of the most common models of deceptive behavior that explains why and the means people exhibit the deception cues. The core assumption of this theory is based on the perception that people exhibit different nonverbal behaviors when they are being truthful and when they engage in deceit (Vrij et al., 2019). In line with the multi-factor theory, emotional arousal, cognitive load as well as an attempt at behavioral control of an individual are all affected if one engages in deception.

Cognitive theories represents the limited resources contained in the brain and used to store and process received information which explains the finite capacity to carry out tasks such as deceit which stresses the working memory. On the other hand, emotional arousal is when an individual is in a heightened physical or psychological arousal state as a result of engaging themselves in deception (Vrij et al., 2019). Conversely, behavioral control is the degree to which people are in control of the behaviors that they portray. As a result, an effort to overpower automatic behavioral manifestations using conscious expression forms, specifically when attempting to fashion a good impression, is symbolized by an increase in behavioral control. Comparatively, the inability to inspire what behaviors to be displayed is an outcome of decreased behavioral control. This can be a product of decreased emotional arousal or cognitive load (Mapala, 2020). The influence of these three factors may be observed via nonverbal behaviors and are mostly referred to as nonverbal cues. Moreover, the most vital view of this theory is that deceptive and truthful people are not motivated using the same factors to a similar level hence making nonverbal measures a necessary tool to be used in detecting lies. In particular, the emotional arousal and cognitive load are based on the view that when deception occurs, the resultant nonverbal behaviors are non-conscious spontaneous responses to environmental stimuli and pressures.

Cognitive theories

The cognitive theories go against the effectiveness of focusing on the emotions of liars and instead seek to establish when and how deceit is more taxing cognitively compared to presenting honesty and the ways in which such cognitive load can display on nonverbal behavior. Here, the cognitive load approach refers to the presumed stress put on the working memory caused by engaging in deception. The assumed increase in cognitive load is regarded to be an outcome of consistently fabricating an acceptable lie while holding the truth and preserving an internally reliable narrative of deception (Levine, 2022). However, the narrative must align with external information and are all considered to be cognitively exhausting. According to the cognitive load approach, changes in the nonverbal behaviors of deceptive individuals, like reduced movement, are caused by being involved with cognitively demanding verbal tasks.

Moreover, this theory gives reasons that account for the differences in cognitive load in truthful individuals and liars. For example, drawing truthful accounts is easier compared to constantly fabricating a lie from memory (Vrij et al., 2019). This is because a deception act must contain adequate details that equip the lie with the characteristics of an event of self-experience, making it believable. Furthermore, supplying details can be risky if the audience of the lie contains knowledgeable information that may go against and dispute the deceiver’s claims or assertions. In addition, compared to liars, honest speakers tend to take their credibility lightly. For instance, truth speakers mostly communicate the view that innocence becomes obvious to audiences by simply being honest. In contrast, liars are inclined to put more effort into sounding believable, especially when they believe their credibility may be questioned (Mapala, 2020). Additionally, cultivating a lie necessitates mental effort as it is a deliberate and intentional act, whereas telling the truth occurs automatically. However, even though these are excellent reasons to establish that deception lays a formidable burden on the cognitive resources compared to honesty, deceit may not bring about clear cues.

Strategic models is another branch of cognitive theories which perceives deception among individuals as a type of game that warrants various strategic choices and decisions from the deceiver. The models draw from the classic model of the suspect’s psychology by Hilgendorf and Irving, where individuals that contain implicating information to hide or conceal have to deal with strategic decisions on what to take accountability for, what to hide or suppress, and what to refute (Vrij et al., 2019). Moreover, in relation to strategic models, the most significant view is that deceivers are motivated by calculation, planning, and strategizing.

Emotional Arousal Theory

Emotional arousal is assumed to cause changes in non-verbal behavior, which can be initiated by the initiation of fear of being caught, guilty feelings of being a liar, or even the pleasure of the deceit going unnoticed. Vrij et al. (2019), postulated that a failure to conceal emotions linked to deception can result in nonverbal cues that would indicate deceit. The verbal cues could emerge in different channels like legs, hands, and face. This is in line with the punishment theory, which affirms the view that the possible consequences of failing to communicate a deceptive narrative initiate an increase in psychophysiological arousal as well as the intensity of emotions. The activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is mirrored by increased arousal. In addition, the activation of the sympathetic nervous system induced by deception can lead to reactions like increased pupil dilation, perspiration as well as heart rate.

Behavioral Control

Individuals try to take control of their behavioral aspects to raise the possibility of succeeding in their deceptions. As per the behavioral control approach, attempts to take charge of behavioral patterns may be influenced by the beliefs of a person regarding the behaviors that expose deception. According to this approach, an increase in the control of behaviors is considered as a deliberate attempt to adjust perceived unintentional representations of non-verbal behaviors that portray deceit. According to Vrij et al. (2019), presuming that liars can be identified by their hand movements leads to a significant decline in finger and hand movements. Moreover, increased stiffness and low impulsiveness in physical movements are also instances that individuals use as behavioral control methods when they are trying to be deceptive. As a result, these attempts of behavioral control end up being used as deception cues, possibly due to the fact that they are regarded as invalid beliefs, which makes their adjusted behaviors to appear displaced or strenuous instead of signaling honesty.

Apart from using the perceptions of behavioral control to detect deceit, engaging in deception can significantly lead to the involuntary decreased capability to take charge of behavior patterns. This is a consequence of the effect of cognitive load as well as psychophysiological arousal. Moreover, a lack of cognitive resources during deception can lead to a leak in behavior which involves increased behaviors that portray acts of deception resulting from the lack of capability to effectively control what to display (Mapala, 2020). An illustration of behavioral leakage is the presentation of gestural slips, characterized as head or hand gestures that, by meaning, contradict verbal communication.

Social Psychological Approaches: Interpersonal and Contextual Theories

The social psychological theories of understanding nonverbal cues related to deception are based on the perception that truthful and lying behavior takes place in a social context. Moreover, it follows the view that behaviors are taken to be a function of the individual as well as the environment (Mapala, 2020). The theories under the social psychological approaches include Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT), self-presentational theory, and moral psychology theory. Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) considers deception as a dynamic relation between senders and recipients of information (Vrij et al., 2019). The theory further postulates that the truth in a lie always emerges in time as sources and receivers observe each other and jointly modify each other using the feedback they obtain from one another, thereby enhancing the possibility of unfolding deception.

On the other hand, the self-presentational theory argues that truth-tellers and deceivers share a mutual aim of being regarded as truthful. To reach this objective, both liars and honest speakers involve themselves in automatic and intentional self-presentational efforts for the purpose of developing a plausible impression (Mapala, 2020). As a result, the self-presentational theory is regarded as a radical model of deceit as it puts emphasis on the similarities between honesty and deception instead of characterizing features unique to dishonesty. However, self-presentational theory depicts a key discrepancy between the two actions where both deceivers and truth speakers make declarations of honesty (Vrij et al., 2019). Compared to truth-tellers, liars recognize their claims to be illegitimate. This difference accounts for the rise of behavioral cues that depict deception where liars are not inclined to fully accept their stories and act deliberately.

According to the moral psychology theory, human beings possess two ethical standards sets in relation to the approval of lies. First, people consider deception a moral offense when they regard themselves as the audience of the lie. On the other hand, when they are personally engaged in deceit, they underestimate the weight of their behavior and readily invent ways and details that justify their stories (Mapala, 2020). Moreover, the emotional theory displays that deceivers may undergo shame and guilt. However, this can just be a representation where people think they are supposed to experience these emotions (Vrij et al., 2019). In addition, people can be morally more sensible when they lie. This is because individuals lie following their own reasons and work to make sense of it to preserve their self-concept as decent human beings.

Literature Review

Nonverbal Behavior and Deception

The detection of lies or deceit is a social problem since the deceiver will have to carefully fabricate a story and make it internally reliable while hiding their true intentions and emotions to be able to effectively mislead their audience. Following this, nonverbal communication such as facial expressions and tone of voice take key roles in identifying or detecting deception (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). The act of deception can be expressed in different forms, from the simplest lies, which are mostly told with the aim of facilitating interaction in the social setting to serious ones, which can have dire consequences (Vrij et al., 2022). An example of a simple lie is when an individual complements one by having a lovely hairstyle when in reality, the person was not impressed. In contrast, Owolafe and Ayeni (2021) state that serious lies can cause serious damage, which can include the implication of individuals for crimes that they took no part in. There are also exaggeration types of lies where the message transmitted exceeds the truth of the matter, such as embellishing an individual’s skills and abilities over job interviews.

In addition, there are sensitive lies fashioned for the purpose of misleading others. For instance, a leader can boast of building great hospitals when indeed, all he did was just modify clinics. On the other hand, according to Snellens (2017), a significant difference exists between lies that are self-based and ones that are other-oriented. The self-based deceptions are meant to help the deceiver to be considered a better person or aid in gaining a personal advantage over others (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Conversely, other-oriented lies are used to benefit a second party by making them appear better.

Detecting the deception of others is a significant and relevant ability or skill in daily interactions in society as well as in the legal system. According to Ritchie et al. (2019), the personality and sex of individuals act as vital determinants of accuracy associated with high-stakes emotional situations. In addition, they stated that behaviors of empathy, such as a soft focus on eye contact, inhibit the lie detection process and that narcissism is a negative determinant. Moreover, Machiavellianism is largely related to increased lie production as some individuals are more prepared to and better at lying compared to others (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). This is because it is a positive factor for bias-free accuracy with a positive effect on lie detection in both men and women. As per (Lyons et al., 2017), Machiavellianism, specifically in women, indicates that people use aggression and manipulation in interpersonal relations, which can be a manipulative strategy that helps women obtain resources for lie detection. Furthermore, compared to women, men are more inclined to suppress foot and leg movements when engaged in deception.

Furthermore, men with high levels of narcissistic behaviors contain poor abilities in the detection of lies as it is largely associated with having over-confidence in the lie detection ability of an individual. Moreover, narcissism, when associated with features such as self-centeredness, results in the negative evaluation of the nonverbal behaviors of individuals (Michels, 2022). This is because individuals with high narcissism hold negative biasness toward others which disrupts the assessments of the veracity of statements.

On the other hand, coding nonverbal behaviors, including facial expressions, is a skill that can be developed easily. This follows the fact that the capability of encoding facial expressions can increase as an individual continues to grow their role-playing skills and their ability to be emotionally expressive. Encoding nonverbal behaviors such as facial expressions mostly come after careful observation (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Moreover, the intensity and type of facial emotion displayed on an individual’s face are influenced by the nature of the situation, the social standing, ethnicity, and gender of the sender and receiver (Burgoon, 2018). In addition, these factors can also influence the judgment of the decoder with regard to the emotion type displayed.

Among the nonverbal cues that individuals portray during the act of deceit are the pointers of nervousness. According to Vrij and Fisher (2020), this is to mean that nervousness may symbolize engagement in deception. Similarly, Snellens (2017) found that individuals use notions of target nervousness to differentiate deceptive from truthful accounts. In addition, Vrij and Fisher (2020) suggest that nervousness perceptions are negatively related to the credibility of witnesses and positively correlate with deceptiveness among liars. As a result, extreme nervousness can be used to identify deception (Zhang et al., 2020; Shaw & Lyons, 2017). Furthermore, compared to truthful individuals, deceptive people tend to express more nervousness, especially during interviews and interrogations. The relation between deception and notions of nervousness denotes that people presume that involving themselves in deceptive actions forces a speaker to become nervous and that it manifests itself in the liar’s performances or presentations. However, nervousness does not completely need to be associated with having a dishonest intention (Vrij & Fisher, 2020). This is because deceivers do not necessarily exhibit more levels of nervousness as compared to truth tellers (Denault et al., 2019). For this reason, if there exists an alternative explanation for the nervousness displayed by the speaker, the nervous depicted loses its credibility to be associated with deception.

Other nonverbal cues that are mostly associated with deception include gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and vocalics. As per Eaves and Leathers (2017), gestures are the most common adaptors, mostly linked with nonverbal behaviors that indicate deceptive behaviors. Similarly, Loy et al. (2018) argue that gestures such as leg movement positively correlate with deception. On the other hand, King et al. (2020) say that eye contact is a significant nonverbal cue for detecting deception. According to Verigin et al. (2020), deceptive individuals are mostly inclined to use more eye contact in their interactions as they attempt to increase the feelings of warmth as well as closeness. Likewise, Snellens (2017) suggests that lying individuals tend to use less eye contact when communicating with strangers. This is because they use it as a strategy for controlling their perceptive behaviors (Hamlin et al., 2020). Moreover, Shen et al. (2021) claim that increased eye blinking can be effectively associated with deception. This can be because of increased cognitive activity and heightened arousal.

Additionally, individuals can deliberately use facial expressions in attempts to deceive others. People display their feelings that, in reality, do not possess and enhance the intensity of ones that they actually exhibit. Similarly, Hamlin et al. (2020) argue that deceptive individuals could try to display less feelings than they are experiencing or conceal them using other feelings. Conversely, Sternberg and Kosticc (2020) claim that vocalics can also be used as signs of detecting. Some of the vocalics used in detecting deception include changes in speech intonation and pitch.

As much as individuals depend on using mostly nonverbal communication compared to verbal communication to establish if one is being dishonest, there are no set behaviors that one can utilize in fashioning their nonverbally based deception detector. Moreover, people mostly take themselves to be great deception detectors, yet when prompted, they only accurately expose deceit at levels a bit higher as compared to what they would do at random (Burgoon, 2018). In addition, Sternberg and Kosticc (2020) presumed that people are only able to detect almost half of the lies they are told since deception is a common theme and is widespread. This denotes that individuals use false and misguided knowledge and information without even knowing. Following this, Eaves and Leathers (2017) suggested that there are factors that work against an individual’s ability to detect deception. According to Eaves and Leathers (2017), truth bias is one such force that makes people want to believe that an individual is not being deceptive, particularly when they have interacted with and liked the individual. On the other hand, Vainapel et al. (2021) proposed another force to be lie bias, especially in individuals who work in places like law enforcement and those with interpersonal trust problems. This is to mean that these individuals are more likely to assume that others are being deceptive than they are honest with them most of the time.

In addition, nonverbal cues of deception are presumed to come from nonverbal leakage. As per Burgoon (2018), one such cue that results from nonverbal leakage is anxiety which is a form of arousal that causes or incites bodily responses such as those that are experienced when perceiving danger. Similarly, Eaves and Leathers (2017) suggest that this also happens when individuals get excited due to some reason. These bodily reactions experienced as a result of anxiety include ones that are visible such as increased movements and those that are audible, like changes in volume, voice pitch, and increased movements. Likewise, King et al. (2020) argue that other bodily changes would include increased heart rate, breathing as well as changes in the skin’s electrical conductivity most of which are not always noticeable. Therefore, these changes can be used as indicators of deceptive acts in the absence of other forces that would initiate similar signals.

As a result, the nonverbal behaviors that individuals relate with acts of deceit come from the efforts to control the leakage resulting from physiological and cognitive changes and not from the deception. According to Hamlin et al. (2020), the signals emerge and increase since people are inclined to oppose deceptive actions. This is because human beings are accustomed to believe that honesty is a better virtue than deception since they are afraid of being discovered and getting punished as a result. In contrast, Vainapel et al. (2021) argue that other individuals are motivated and determined to successfully get away with deception. In addition, leakage occurs due to increased cognitive demands that are connected with deception. As per Burgoon (2018), cognitive activity increases when individuals must make a choice of either engaging in deception or not, which mostly entails some kind of internal debate. Consequently, individuals will have to fabricate a story or even execute any other manipulation that would make their accounts believable if they chose the path of deception (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Furthermore, individuals mostly fashion their strategy of manipulation based on the person they are communicating with.

In other words, lying is a difficult task since it involves people deviating from their familiar and comfortable communication criteria in interactions as well as acting against their social norms. This is because individuals are scared to destroy their social relations or even find themselves being convicted as a result of deception (Vainapel et al., 2021; Gunderson et al., 2021). However, Burgoon (2018) argues that experienced and skilled liars can create new scripts and learn to be familiar and comfortable with them. This enables them to easily engage in dishonesty without triggering anxiety and physical responses to it (Gunderson et al., 2021). In addition, great liars are highly motivated, which increases the possibility of them getting caught, as leakages in behaviors can easily occur as they try to conceal their actual reactions.

In addition, there exist nonverbal cues that are both related to deception and other behaviors that would mislead one into presuming an individual as being dishonest when in reality, they are just guilty or excited. According to Hamlin et al. (2020), people that tend to be more expressive can be considered to be better at deceiving. However, as per Eaves and Leathers (2017), individuals that typically exhibit anxiety cannot necessarily be taken to be excellent liars. Similarly, individuals considered to be great self-monitors such as are regarded as better deceivers since they are conscious of nonverbal signals that may reveal their acts and work better at taking account of and controlling them (Gunderson et al., 2021). Furthermore, higher self-monitors such as actors, politicians, lawyers, and salespeople are considered to be great deceivers as they tend to conceal their internal feelings and control the external behaviors that would easily implicate them during deception (Hamlin et al., 2020; Wright & Wheatcroft, 2017). Moreover, people improve their deception skills as they age since they can continually learn the details of implicating communication signals as they get more time to master them.

Furthermore, on the view that nonverbal behaviors are not entirely associated with deception as they manifest as an outcome of cognitive and emotional states as well individuals exhibit signs of stress when they experience false accusations of deception. According to Burgoon (2018), the signs these individuals exhibit in this situation can easily be mistaken for signals of deceptive acts. Similarly, as per Hamlin et al. (2020), behaviors such as slower speech rates, increased body movements, decreased eye contact, less smiling, and taking longer response times are easily mistaken to be related to deception. These are some of the misconceptions associated with deceptive acts.

Common Errors Made by Lie Detectors

Failure in detecting deception is spurred by the lack of motivation in truth seekers due to the fact that the lie in question is too challenging for them to decode. Moreover, failure occurs due to the common mistakes individuals make during the lie detection process. According to Vrij and Fisher (2020), individuals focus on examining wrong cues, such as anxiety and nervousness. This is because this cue can be exhibited by both truth-tellers and deceivers, which decreases its effectiveness in deciphering honesty in information. On the other hand, Denault et al. (2019) suggest that nonverbal cues such as grooming gestures as well as gaze aversion cannot be taken as relevant cues in lie detection. However, Hamlin et al. (2020) argue that lie catchers such as the police can use such cues during their interrogations as suspects tend to avoid making eye contact with the investigator. For this reason, such a cue can be used as an effective nonverbal cue.

In addition, most lie detectors encounter the problem of the Othello-Error. This is because they tend to easily mistake signs of nervousness and anxiety to denote deception. According to Vrij and Fisher (2020), truth seekers fail to take into consideration that truth-tellers can display the same level of nervousness when they are put on interview. Moreover, innocent individuals can display anxiety behaviors as a result of being accused of something that they have not done or even fear whether they will be believed (Shen et al., 2021). This follows the fact that the truth-teller can experience significant consequences if they fail to convince their interrogators.

In addition, professional lie catchers are more inclined to use the speech content of the suspect when trying to identify acts of deceit. They tend to focus more on the source’s verbal content and effectively compare it with their own knowledge to make sense of the message communicated (Sternberg & Kosticc, 2020). However, as per Denault et al. (2019), truth seekers tend to prefer nonverbal behaviors to verbal cues when they lack factual information, and this can cause hindrance to the process of lie detection. In addition, Vrij et al. (2019) argue that overemphasis on nonverbal cues can be an outcome of training. This is because some individuals, such as law enforcement officers, are trained to rely more on nonverbal behaviors than verbal cues in deciphering information.

Another common error encountered or made during the process of lie detection is the use of heretics. Burgoon (2018) argues that truth seekers mostly depend on using heretics as well as general decision rules instead of carefully evaluating the responses provided by examining the credibility of the individual under question. As much as Bowman (2021) claims that the use of heretics can help deal with the demands of information processing as well as complex environments, they are not all effective. According to Sternberg and Kosticc (2020), facial heuristics is the most problematic as it does not associate an individual with the correct cues that they are supposed to exhibit when under interrogation. This is where observers associate honesty or truthfulness with symmetrical and attractive faces (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). However, individuals with certain facial features that indicate unkindness and anger are judged to be liars (Murai et al., 2018). As a result, the use of this heuristic becomes inappropriate because individuals are not supposed to be associated with or judged according to their physical appearance.

In addition, personal differences can negatively impact the accuracy of individual judgments. According to Eaves and Leathers (2017), different people exhibit unique behaviors and speech cues. This is because some people naturally tend to move more as compared to others. Moreover, Sternberg and Kosticc (2020) argue that some individuals are typically inclined to avert their gaze due to shyness or even fidget more, but that does not mean that they are deceptive. In support of this, Burgoon (2018) argues that this kind of difference that involves behavioral reactions cannot be easily controlled. For this reason, an individual can end up being falsely characterized as a liar. As per Eaves and Leathers (2017), cues exhibited by a particular ethnic group can be regarded as suspicious when they interact with another culture. This is because of the different ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the involved parties (Sternberg & Kosticc, 2020). In addition, socially anxious people display impressions of fear, tension, or even nervousness. Individuals that display and show social awkwardness, especially if they are introverts which, can cause potential errors in deceit detection.

Intrapersonal differences are another error that can have a negative impact on the veracity of information judgment. According to Eaves and Leathers (2017), apart from different individuals having different reactions to a similar situation, a person can also respond to various situations differently. For this reason, Verigin et al. (2020) suggest that truth seekers should first observe a person’s natural behavior before the interview to determine how they react to different situations. In contrast, Caso et al. (2019a) argue that comparing the behaviors revealed during the actual interview and those before the interrogation can lead to inappropriate judgments. This is because getting to understand the suspect and actively engaging in the crime discussions are considered different and unique settings. In support of this, Eaves and Leathers (2017) claim that the responses of an individual during low-stake conversations are not likely to generate any negative outcomes hence the suspect will not appropriately display nonverbal cues. On the other hand, an individual’s reaction exhibited in a high stake setting that involves the actual interview will lead to critical decisions. Thus, innocent and guilty individuals are all inclined to exhibit different behaviors in small talk than ones they display during the real interview.

In addition, professionals in lie detection are always more inclined to overrate their deception exposure skills. According to Garcia and Gneezy (2021), high confidence in an individual’s skills involving lie detection can be regarded as a common error made by lie catchers. This is because an overestimation of an individual’s capability to efficiently identify deceit can lead to dire consequences, especially when the confidence is not justified. In support of this argument, Denault et al. (2019) claim that overconfidence can open paths for truth seekers to try to detect lies using behavioral cues instead of searching for physical evidence that can be used in building a case. Moreover, overconfidence can result in reduced motivation towards learning more on effective techniques for the detection of deception.

Techniques of Detecting Deception

The Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI)

The Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) is a component of the Reid school of interrogation that entails a list of 15 interrogation questions against which deceivers and honest speakers are expected to provide different nonverbal responses. According to Vrij et al. (2019), the main purpose of this approach is to help truth seekers such as the police differentiate between innocent and guilty individuals to deceptive actions. Moreover, (Bettens, 2021) argues that the standard application of the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) is that it involves an interview process that law enactors such as the police use before initiating a formal accusatory interrogation. Therefore, the main aim of the (BAI) is to aid potential investigators group individuals that are probably guilty from ones that are not.

It is worth noting that common concepts such as guilt are usually used to indicate deceit and lying, while honesty is associated with innocence which is not always the case. Following this view, Vrij and Turgeon (2018) argued that the BAI is fashioned to induce nonverbal cues to identify deceit. On the other hand, Granhag and Luke (2018) claim that the BAI is not utilized to establish the truthfulness of a specific message or statement communicated by a sender. Similarly, Vrij et al. (2019) argue that the BAI is particularly used in detecting liars in the matter of the investigation. Moreover, the detection of a lie in a specific situation is not considered as the preferred outcome of the BAI, but the completed process that helps individuals conclude that the liar or the guilty individual is certainly withholding significant information. In addition, the BAI aids establish that the situation requires further investigations. As a result, an appropriately completed BAI produces a proper decision of whether to eliminate individuals from suspicion or not.

The Baseline Approach

The baseline approach is a technique used to determine truthful judgments on individual cases. It involves evaluating information in relation to baseline statements regarded as authentic. According to (Vrij et al., 2019), truth seekers are required to investigate the truthful and natural nonverbal behavior of an individual prior to the start of the interview. The identified behavior is then used as a baselining comparison throughout the interrogation (Caso et al., 2019b). In addition, Caso et al. (2019a) argue that any discrepancy between the observed baseline behavior and the actual interview can be regarded as a signal of deception. Moreover, Verigin et al. (2020) claimed that the accuracy of the veracity of information judgment significantly increases when individuals are able to first develop familiarity with their interviewee’s truthful style of communication. The most important problem with this approach is that the suspect’s behavior can be easily influenced by the key differences between the interview and the small talk conducted before the interview (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). This could negatively impact the credibility and accuracy of judgment as the suspect will be well versed on the happenings of the case.

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NPL) is a prescriptive model used by human beings to facilitate and promote their communication skills as well as enhance their individual learning, such as establishing how to identify deceit. As per Spiroiu (2018), the NPL model suggests that people contain an involuntary preferred representational System (PRS) which allows them to experience their external environment unknowingly. The PRS corresponds to the three most basic senses, including feeling, hearing, and vision. In support of this, Vrij et al. (2019) argue that the NPL helps differentiate between liars and truth tellers with regard to the specific eye movements that both parties exhibit. Similarly, King et al. (2020) claim that eye movements help expose more information relating to an individual and signal if a person is trying to fabricate information or they are actually remembering. Likewise, Spiroiu (2018) says that the eye movements in the up and then right directions for a normally organized individual imply images constructed visually. Moreover, movements in the up then left direction to indicate that the individual is remembering images visually (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Furthermore, left eye movements denote auditory remembered sounds, and movements down then to the right display the kinesthetic feelings of the individual under study.

Discussion

Nonverbal behaviors can be effectively used in the detection of deceit. This can be done by first examining the nonverbal cues and behavior of the deceiver that signal deceptive behavior (Vrij & Fisher, 2020). In addition, liars can expose that they are engaging in deceptive acts through their nonverbal behavior like nervousness, fidgeting, and eye as well as body movements (King et al., 2020). In addition, liars also display increased heart rate, changes in the skin’s electrical conductivity, increased breathing, and production of sweat. Moreover, deceptive individuals also tend to experience changes in the tone and frequency of voice as vocal cues. As a result, nonverbal behaviors are great pointers for deceptive behavior since they can be easily controlled, especially when there is a presence of emotional arousal exhibited by the deceiver.

However, not all nonverbal behaviors and cues depict that an individual is being deceptive. This is because other cues are linked to other reasons, such as excitement and fear. Examples of such behaviors include anxiety and nervousness (Snellens, 2017). In addition, this is among the common errors that truth seekers make during the deceit deciphering process. Moreover, Eaves and Leathers (2017) argue that innocent people can exhibit anxiety cues and the same level of nervousness displayed by guilty individuals, especially when they have been accused of something that they actually were not involved in. The guilt and nervousness they depict are a product of fear of not being believed by the observer during the investigation.

In addition, innocent individuals experience nervousness due to the fear of the consequence that they will face if they fail to convince their investigator of their innocence. Apart from wrongfully linking wrong cues to deception, observers also make errors in interpersonal and intrapersonal errors where they do not understand how individuals would react in situations at hand (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Moreover, they tend to be overconfident, put more emphasis on nonverbal cues while ignoring verbal cues, and use the physical appearance of individuals to make decisions on deceptive behaviors. This decreases the accuracy of deception and leads to inaccurate decisions.

One of the factors that help in the detection of deception is motivation level. Compared to individuals that are not much concerned with the result of their interview, the highly motivated ones are more inclined to act differently. This motivated behavior increases the possibility of giving them away as a knowledgeable observer understands behaviors displayed when an individual is trying to conceal their deceptive behaviors (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2020). The desire and motivation to engage in deceptive acts can make the facial expressions, and other nonverbal behaviors of the deceiver become misleading information sources. This is because untrustworthy individuals are inclined to control their emotions or deceptive behaviors. According to Eaves and Leathers (2017), some deceptive people try to conceal the real emotions they feel during an interrogation to maintain their story’s credibility. In other words, Caso et al. (2019a) explain that they learn to display certain emotions and behaviors that are intended to sway the public or observer’s opinion. This kind of fabricated emotion aims at hiding their actual feeling that will help mislead their audience into believing their communicated messages.

Deceptive individuals are able to fabricate false facial expressions in three forms. First, they can pretend to display facial emotion when, in reality, they are feeling none. Second, they try not to show any facial emotion even though they are actually having emotions which results neutralize in emotion neutralization. Lastly, liars are inclined to conceal, cover or hide the emotions they feel by showing others that they do not have any in an attempt to misguide their observer or audience. Moreover, Eaves and Leathers (2017) argue that facial deception, whether deliberate or unintentional, makes it challenging for the decoder by reducing the value of the facial source of being a credible source of providing information for deciphering messages communicated. This is because the issue at hand becomes how the recipient will act and not be deceived by facial deception hence reducing the accuracy of the decision taken.

As a result, it necessitates for the observer to be aware of facial expression lacking spontaneity and is not consistent with the words being uttered by the suspect. In addition, the receiver can identify when the facial expression is involved with a calculated movement to supplement the story being told, creating a discrepancy (King et al., 2020). Moreover, the observer will need to be attentive to unintentional micro momentary facial expressions, especially when they do not align with the actual facial expressions sustained throughout the interrogation or observation. This is because it significantly makes it challenging for the truth seeker to effectively decode the facial expressions displayed. Furthermore, lie catchers can identify modified behavior that indicates deception through training (Eaves & Leathers, 2017). Training allo ws observers to become aware when a fabricated facial expression is not consistent with the words being uttered.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper has discussed the relationship between nonverbal communication and deception. The theories used to discuss this association include multi-factor theory which explains the cognitive theories, emotional theories, and behavioral control. Other theories explained include Social Psychological Approaches: Interpersonal and Contextual Theories, which include Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT), self-presentational theory, and moral psychology theory. The nonverbal cues used to indicate deception include fidgeting, constant changes in body posture, gaze avoidance, agitation, nervousness as well as leg and foot movements. In addition, increased heart rate, breathing, as well as sweat production, and changes in the skin’s electrical conductivity are also used to signify deception. However, nonverbal cues such as anxiety and nervousness are linked to other behaviors such as excitement and fear. Hence they cannot be reliably used as pointers for deception.

Common errors that lie catchers make during the deception detection process include focusing on examining wrong cues, preference of verbal cues, and depending on using heretics. In addition, they are inclined to ignore interpersonal and intrapersonal differences and have overconfidence in their lie detection skills. Finally, some of the techniques used to detect deception include the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI), baseline Approach, and Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP).

Recommendations

Despite non-verbal cues helping detect deception, there is a significant challenge in the use of methods which rely on crosschecking nervousness and anxiety. The current studies have not provided a clear connection on the relationship between fear, excitement and anxiety when detecting truthfulness. Therefore, future studies need to focus more on the issue since they are related to mental disorders affecting lie detection. Furthermore, when detecting deception, one should check on multiple cues rather than concluding single cues, such as anxiety or nervousness, which may be ambiguous.

References

Bettens, T. (2021). Lying strategies in juveniles during behavior analysis interviews [Master’s thesis, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga].

Bowman, J. (2021). Nonverbal communication. Sage Publications.

Brennen, T., & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley.Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-4. Web.

Burgoon, J. (2018). Microexpressions are not the best way to catch a liar.Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-5. Web.

Caso, L., Palena, N., Carlessi, E., & Vrij, A. (2019). Police accuracy in truth/lie detection when judging baseline interviews.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(6), 841-850. Web.

Caso, L., Palena, N., Vrij, A., & Gnisci, A. (2019). Observers’ performance at evaluating truthfulness when provided with comparable truth or small talk baselines.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(4), 571-579. Web.

Denault, V., Dunbar, N., & Plusquellec, P. (2019). The detection of deception during trials: Ignoring the nonverbal communication of witnesses is not the solution—A response to Vrij and Turgeon (2018).The International Journal of Evidence &; Proof, 24(1), 3-11. Web.

Eaves, M., & Leathers, D. (2017). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (5th ed.). Routledge.

Garcia, M., & Gneezy, U. (2021). Mistakes, overconfidence, and the effect of sharing on detecting lies.American Economic Review, 111(10), 3160-3183. Web.

Granhag, A., & Luke, T. (2018). How to interview to elicit concealed information.Detecting Concealed Information And Deception, 271-295. Web.

Gunderson, C., Baker, A., Pence, A., & Brinke, L. (2021). Interpersonal consequences of deceptive expressions of sadness.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-13. Web.

Hall, J., Horgan, T., & Murphy, N. (2019). Nonverbal communication.Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 271-294. Web.

Hamlin, I., Taylor, P., Cross, L., MacInnes, K., & Van der Zee, S. (2020). A psychometric investigation into the structure of deception strategy use.Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(2), 229-239. Web.

King, J., Loy, J., Rohde, H., & Corley, M. (2020). Interpreting nonverbal cues to deception in real time. PLOS ONE, 15(3), 1-25. Web.

Levine, T. (2022). Scientific evidence and cue theories in deception research: reconciling findings from meta-analyses and primary experiments.International Journal of Communication, 12, 2461–2479. Web.

Looff, P., Cornet, L., Embregts, P., Nijman, H., & Didden, H. (2018). Associations of sympathetic and parasympathetic activity in job stress and burnout: A systematic review.Plos one, 13(10), 1-24. Web.

Loy, J., Rohde, H., & Corley, M. (2018). Cues to lying may be deceptive: speaker and listener behaviour in an interactive game of deception.Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1-21. Web.

Lyons, M., Croft, A., Fairhurst, S., Varley, K., & Wilson, C. (2017). Seeing through crocodile tears? Sex-specific associations between the Dark Triad traits and lie detection accuracy.Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 1-4. Web.

Mapala, T. (2020). Detecting deception through non-verbal behaviour [Doctoral Dissertation, Lancaster University].

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. (2020). Clusters of nonverbal behavior differentiate truths and lies about future malicious intent in checkpoint screening interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(4), 463-478. Web.

Michels, M. (2022). General intelligence and the Dark Triad.Journal of Individual Differences, 43(1), 35-46. Web.

Murai, J., Nose, I., & Takiguchi, Y. (2018). The more attractive, the less deceptive? Effects of female facial attractiveness on perceived Deceptiveness.Psychology, 09(04), 529-539. Web.

Owolafe, O., & Ayeni, O. (2021). In detecting deception using Decision Tree and SVM across different cues.Nigerian Journal of Technology, 40(6), 1079 –1085. Web.

Ritchie, M., Blais, J., & Forth, A. (2019). “Evil” intentions: Examining the relationship between the Dark Triad and victim selection based on nonverbal gait cues.Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 126-132. Web.

Shaw, H., & Lyons, M. (2017). Lie detection accuracy—the role of age and the use of emotions as a reliable cue.Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(4), 300-304. Web.

Shen, X., Fan, G., Niu, C., & Chen, Z. (2021). Catching a liar through facial expression of fear.Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-10. Web.

Snellens, K. (2017). Deception in everyday life [Master’s thesis, University of Twente].

Spiroiu, F. (2018). The impact of beliefs concerning deception on perceptions of nonverbal behavior: Implications for neuro-linguistic programming-based lie detection.Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 33(3), 244-256. Web.

Sternberg, R., & Kostic, A. (2020). Social intelligence and nonverbal communication. Springer.

Vainapel, S., Shani, Y., & Shalvi, S. (2021). Motivated interpretations of deceptive information.Brain Sciences, 11(3), 1-19. Web.

Verigin, B., Meijer, E., & Vrij, A. (2020). A within-statement baseline comparison for detecting lies.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(1), 94-103. Web.

Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. (2020). Unraveling the misconception about deception and nervous behavior.Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1377), 1-8. Web.

Vrij, A., & Turgeon, J. (2018). Evaluating credibility of witnesses – are we instructing jurors on invalid factors?Journal of Tort Law, 11(2), 231-244. Web.

Vrij, A., Fisher, R., & Leal, S. (2022). How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-15. Web.

Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 295-317. Web.

Wright, C., & Wheatcroft, J. (2017). Police officers’ beliefs about, and use of, cues to deception.Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14(3), 307-319. Web.

Zhang, J., Lu, Y., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2020). The effects of foreign language anxiety, nervousness and cognitive load on foreign language lying: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(7), 861-873. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!