Exposed: 3 Ways To Identify A Liar
6 min read
Lying and deception are common human behaviors. Until relatively recently there has been little actual research into just how often people lie. Some surveys have suggested that as many as 96 percent of people admit to lying at least sometimes. One national study of 1,000 U.S. adults found that sixty percent of respondents claimed that they did not lie at all. Instead, the researchers found that about half of all lies were told by just 5 percent of all the subjects.
The study suggests that while prevalence rates may vary, there likely exists a small group of very prolific liars.
The reality is that most people lie from time to time. Some of these lies are little white lies intended to protect someone else’s feelings (“No, that shirt does not make you look fat!”). In other cases, these lies can be much more serious (like lying on a resume) or even sinister (covering up a crime).
People Are Surprisingly Bad at Spotting Lies
People also like to believe that they are pretty good at detecting lies and folk wisdom suggests a wide variety of ways to root out dishonesty. Some of the most common: Liars tend to fidget and squirm. They won’t look you in the eye. They have shifty eyes when they are telling a lie. Research suggests that most of these notions are simply old wives tales.
While there are plenty of tips out there for uncovering dishonesty, research has shown that people are surprisingly bad at detecting lies. A 2006 study by Bond and DePaulo found that people were only able to accurately detect lying 54 percent of the time in a lab setting – hardly impressive considering a 50 percent hit rate purely by chance alone.
Other studies have shown that even trained investigators are remarkably poor at telling if someone is lying or telling the truth.
Clearly, behavioral differences between honest and lying individuals are difficult to discriminate and measure. Researchers have attempted to uncover different ways to detecting lies. While there may not be a simple, tell-tale sign that someone is dishonest (like Pinocchio’s nose), researchers have found a few helpful indicators. Continue reading to learn more about what body language can (and cannot) tell you, how to actively root out lies, and why you should trust your instincts.
Body Language
When it comes to detecting lies, people often focus on body language “tells,” or subtle physical and behavioral signs that reveal deception. Some of the standard suggestions are that shifty eyes, constant fidgeting, and avoiding eye contact are sure-fire signs that the speaker is not telling the truth.
While body language cues can offer clues to deceptions, research suggests that many of the most expected behaviors are not strongly associated with lying.
When it comes to detecting lies, people often focus on body language “tells,” or subtle physical and behavioral signs that reveal deception. Some of the standard suggestions are that shifty eyes, constant fidgeting, and avoiding eye contact are sure-fire signs that the speaker is not telling the truth.
While body language cues can offer clues to deceptions, research suggests that many of the most expected behaviors are not strongly associated with lying.
Researcher Howard Ehrlichman, a psychologist who has been studying eye movements since the 1970s, has found that eye movements do not signify lying at all. In fact, he suggests that shifting eyes mean that a person is thinking, or more precisely, that he or she is accessing their long-term memory.
Other studies have shown that while individual signals and behaviors are useful indicators of deception, some of the ones most often linked to lying (such as eye movements) are among the worst predictors. So while body language can be a useful tool in the detection of lies, the key is to understand which signals to pay attention to.
So Which Signals Are Linked to Lying?
Psychologists have also utilized research of body language and deception to help members of law enforcement distinguish between the truth and lies. Researchers at UCLA conducted studies on the subject in addition to analyzing 60 studies on deception in order to develop recommendations and training for law enforcement. The results of their research were published in the April issue of the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry.
A few of the potential red flags the researchers identified that might indicate that people are deceptive include:
- Being vague; offering few details
- Repeating questions before answering them
- Speaking in sentence fragments
- Failing to provide specific details when a story is challenged
- Grooming behaviors such as playing with hair or pressing fingers to lips
Lead researcher R. Edward Geiselman suggests that while detecting deception is never easy, quality training can improve a person’s ability to detect lies.
“Without training, many people think they can detect deception, but their perceptions are unrelated to their actual ability. Quick, inadequate training sessions lead people to over-analyze and to do worse than if they go with their gut reactions.”
Body Language Cues Are Often Weak
Research has also shown that people do tend to pay attention to many of the correct behavioral cues associated with deception. A 2001 meta-analysis by researchers Hartwig and Bond found that while people do rely on valid cues for detecting lies, the problem might lie with the weakness of these cues as deception indicators in the first place.
Some of the most accurate deception cues that people do pay attention to including:
- Being vague: If the speaker seems to intentionally leave out important details, it might be because they are lying.
- Vocal uncertainty: If the person seems unsure or insecure, they are more likely to be perceived as lying.
- Indifference: Shrugging, lack of expression, and a bored posture can be signs of lying since the person is trying avoid conveying emotions and possible tells.
- Overthinking: If the individual seems to be thinking too hard to fill in the details of the story, it might be because they are deceiving you.
The lesson here is that while body language may be helpful, it is important to pay attention to the right signals. Experts suggest that relying too heavily on such signals may impair the ability to detect lies. Next, learn more about a more active approach to figuring out if someone is telling the truth.
Ask Them to Tell Their Story in Reverse
Lie detection is often seen as a passive process. People often assume that they can just observe the potential liar’s body language and facial expressions to spot obvious “tells.” While research has shown that this is a pretty bad way to detect lies, taking a more active approach to uncovering lies can yield better results.
Increasing the Mental Load Makes Lying More Difficult
Research suggests that asking people to report their stories in reverse order rather than chronological order can increase the accuracy of lie detection.
The researchers suggest that the verbal and non-verbal cues that distinguish between lying and truth-telling become more apparent as cognitive load increases. In other words, lying is more mentally taxing than telling the truth. If you add even more cognitive complexity, behavioral cues may become more apparent.
Not only is telling a lie more cognitively demanding, but liars typically exert much more mental energy toward monitoring their behaviors and evaluating the responses of others. They are concerned with their credibility and ensuring that other people believe their stories. All this takes a considerable amount of effort, so if you throw in a difficult task (like relating their story in reverse order), cracks in the story and behavior tells might become easier to spot.
Relating a Story in Reverse Leads to Better Lie Detection
In one study, 80 mock suspects either told the truth or lied about a staged event. Some of the individuals were asked to report their stories in reverse order while other simply told their stories in chronological order.
The researchers found that the reverse order interviews revealed more behavioral clues to deception.
In a second experiment, 55 police officers watched taped interviews from the first experiment and were asked to determine who was lying and who was not. The investigation revealed that law enforcement officers were better at detecting lies in the reverse order interviews than they were in the chronological interviews.
This sort of active approach to lie detection can be particularly useful in law enforcement situations, but what about the day-to-day? Next up, learn more about why trusting your immediate associations might be your best bet.
