Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Windows to the Soul? Deliberate Eye Contact as a Cue to Deceit

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although people overwhelmingly believe that liars avoid eye contact, meta-analyses of deception literature have shown a non-significant relationship between gaze and deception. In the present experiment we measured eye movements in an innovative way. We coded the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewer. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers. They therefore may have a greater desire to be convincing and hence more inclined to monitor the interviewer to determine whether they seem to be being believed. We therefore hypothesized that liars would give more appearance of deliberately making eye contact than truth tellers (a relationship which opposes the stereotypical belief that liars look away). A total of 338 passengers at an international airport told the truth or lied about their forthcoming trip. As well as the deliberate eye contact variable, we coded the amount of time the interviewees looked away from the interviewer (e.g., gaze aversion), which is typically examined in deception research. Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact than truth tellers, whereas the amount of gaze aversion did not differ between truth tellers and liars.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bond, C. F., Kahler, K. N., & Paolicelli, L. M. (1985). The miscommunication of deception: An adaptive perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, P. (2009). Detecting deceit: Current issues. In T. Williamson, B. Milne, & S. P. Savage (Eds.), International developments in investigative interviewing (pp. 190–206). Uffculme, UK: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., Comstock, J., Aune, R. K., & Strzyzewski, K. D. (1989). The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty-Sneddon, G., Bruce, V., Bonner, L., Longbotham, S., & Doyle, C. (2002). Development of gaze aversion as disengagement of visual information. Developmental Psychology, 38, 438–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory and Cognition, 33, 727–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton. (Reprinted in 1992 and 2001).

  • Fugita, S. S., Wexley, K. N., & Hillery, J. M. (1974). Black-white differences in nonverbal behavior in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Z. M., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Speakers gaze at objects while preparing intentionally inaccurate labels for them. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 943–948.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communication Monographs, 47, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ickes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of interaction in interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 330–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. R. (2006a). Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 435–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. R. (2006b). Race and police reliance on suspicious nonverbal cues. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalma, A., Witte, M., & Zaalberg, R. (1996). Authenticity: Operationalization, manipulation, and behavioural components: An explaration. Medium Psychologie, 8, 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (2008a). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (2008b). The psychology of confessions. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 4, 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Torkildson-Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stakes liars. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 365–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 219–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. R., deTurck, M. A., & Kalbfleisch, P. J. (1983). Self-Monitoring, rehearsal, and deceptive communication. Human Communication Research, 10, 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 899–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, J. (2010). Home is where the heart lies? A study of false address given to police. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M. E., Brodt, S. E., & Croson, R. T. A. (2002). Seeing and believing: Visual access and the strategic use of deception. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 258–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitton, S. C., & Griffin, S. T. (1981). Detection of deception from clients’ eye contact patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 269–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: An assessment of intimacy, gender and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R., & Hick, R. F. (2007). Believed cues to deception: Judgements in self-generated serious and trivial situations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Global Deception Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (1993). Credibility judgments of detectives: The impact of nonverbal behavior, social skills and physical characteristics on impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 601–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2004). Invited article: Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2006a). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2006b). Nonverbal communication and deception (Invited chapter). In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 341–359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008a). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008b). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1323–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006a). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behaviour in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001a). People’s insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 373–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001b). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006b). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2008a). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Towards a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. B. (2010a). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2008b). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. (2010b). Look into my eyes: Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime, & Law, 16, 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Seminl, & Bull, R. (1996). Insight in behavior displayed during deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 544–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1992). Cross-cultural police-citizen interactions: The influence of race, beliefs and nonverbal communication on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1546–1559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, University of Portsmouth, King Henry Building, King Henry 1 Street, Portsmouth, PO1 2DY, UK

    Samantha Mann, Aldert Vrij, Sharon Leal, Lara Warmelink & Dave Forrester

  2. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Pär Anders Granhag

Authors
  1. Samantha Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aldert Vrij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pär Anders Granhag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dave Forrester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Mann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S. et al. Windows to the Soul? Deliberate Eye Contact as a Cue to Deceit. J Nonverbal Behav 36, 205–215 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation