Abstract
There is a myth in popular psychology, often echoed in police literature, but as yet untested, that specific eye movements pertain to lying and truth telling. According to this line of thought, eye movements to the sender’s right indicate lying, as the sender’s eyes are drawn to the side of his/her brain where their fabrication is being created. We have put this hypothesis, derived from ‘Neuro-Linguistic Programming’ to the test in two experiments. In Experiment 1, a total of 204 participants (all air passengers) were interviewed at an international airport about their forthcoming trip. All participants answered one question truthfully and one question deceptively. Some participants answered a third question truthfully, whereas others answered the same question deceptively. No conclusive evidence was found for a relationship between specific eye movements and deception. In Experiment 2, a total of 31 participants discussed their real occupation in one interview and a pretend occupation in another interview. Only three of the 31 participants revealed the eye movement pattern predicted by NLP. Reasons for the existence of the myth that liars display specific eye movements are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Originally, 33 participants took part but the video recordings of two participants went missing.
The chance that someone would randomly display deceptive eye movements in response to a question is 22% (two out of the nine possible eye movements are seen as indicative of deception), whereas the chance that someone would randomly display non-deceptive eye movements is 78% (seven out of the none possible eye movements are not seen as indicative of deception). Therefore, the chance that someone would randomly display deceptive eye movements in response to both deceptive questions is .22 × .22 = .05, whereas the chance that someone would randomly display non-deceptive eye movements in response to both truthful questions is .78 × .78 = .61. The chance that someone would randomly display the deceptive eye movements in response to the two deception questions and the non-deceptive eye movements in response to the two truthful questions is .05 × .78 = .04
References
Anderson CA, Lepper MR, Ross L (1980) Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. J Personal Soc Psychol 39:1037–1049
Bandler R, Grinder J (1979) Frogs into princes. Real People Press, Moab, Utah
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Darley JM, Gross PH (1983) A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. J Personal Soc Psychol 44:20–33
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191
Fugita SS, Wexley KN, Hillery JM (1974) Black-white differences in nonverbal behavior in an interview setting. J Appl Soc Psychol 4:343–351
Gordon NJ, Felisher WL, Weinberg CD (2002) Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques. Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Hess JE (1997) Interviewing and interrogation for law enforcement. Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH
Ickes W (1984) Compositions in black and white: determinants of interaction in interracial dyads. J Personal Soc Psychol 47:330–341
Johnson MK (1988) Reality monitoring: an experimental phenomenological approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 117:390–394
Johnson RR (2006a) Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness. J Crim Just 34:435–442
Johnson RR (2006b) Race and police reliance on suspicious nonverbal cues. Policing Int J Police Strat Manag 30:277–290
Johnson MK, Raye CL (1981) Reality Monitoring. Psychol Rev 88:67–85
Johnson MK, Foley MA, Suengas AG, Raye CL (1988) Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. J Exp Psychol Gen 117:371–376
Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114:3–29
LaFrance M, Mayo C (1976) Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: two systematic observational studies. J Personal Soc Psychol 33:547–552
Levine TR, Asada KJK, Park HS (2006) The lying chicken and the gaze avoidant egg: eye contact, deception and causal order. Southern J Commun 4:401–411
Masip J, Sporer S, Garrido E, Herrero C (2005) The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence. Psychol Crime Law 11:99–122
Matsumoto D (2006) Culture and nonverbal behavior. In: Manusov V, Patterson ML (eds) The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 219–235
Rhoads SA, Solomon R (1987) Subconscious rapport building: another approach to interviewing. Police Chief 4:39–41
Rice M, Harris GT (2005) Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law Human Behav 29:615–620
Smith A (1983) Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: an assessment of intimacy, gender and race. J Soc Issues 39:55–67
Sporer SL (2004) Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In: Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (eds) Deception detection in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp 64–102
Strömwall LA, Granhag PA, Hartwig M (2004) Practitioners' beliefs about deception. In: Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (eds) Deception detection in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp 229–250
Tesser A (1978) Self-generated attitude change. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (volume 11). Academic Press, New York, pp 288–338
Tulving E (1983) Elements of episodic memory. Oxford University Press, New York
Vrij A (2004) Invited article: why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Leg Criminol Psychol 9:159–181
Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester
Vrij A, Lochun SK (1997) Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: worthwhile or not? J Police Crim Psychol 12:25–31
Vrij A, Granhag PA, Porter SB (2010) Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychol Sci Public Interest 11:89–121
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mann, S., Vrij, A., Nasholm, E. et al. The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool. J Police Crim Psych 27, 160–166 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9097-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9097-8