Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Beliefs Concerning Deception on Perceptions of Nonverbal Behavior: Implications for Neuro-Linguistic Programming-Based Lie Detection

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regularly employed in a forensic context, the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) model purports that the behavioral distinction between somebody who is remembering information and somebody who is constructing information lies in the direction of their eye movements. This strategy reflects numerous current approaches to lie detection, which presume that nonverbal behavior influences perceptions and judgments about deception. The present study emphasized a reverse order by investigating whether beliefs that an individual is deceptive influence perceptions of the respective individual’s nonverbal behavior as indicated by observed eye movement patterns. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to either a group informed that right eye movements indicate constructed and thus deceptive information or a group informed that left eye movements indicate constructed and thus deceptive information. Each participant viewed six investigative interviews depicting the eye movement patterns of mock suspects labeled as deceptive or truthful. The interviews were structured according to different right/left eye movement ratios. Results revealed that participants reportedly observed the deceptive suspects displaying significantly more eye movements in the direction allegedly indicative of deception than did the truthful suspects. This result occurred despite the fact that the actual eye movement ratios in both deceptive/truthful sets of interviews were identical and the eye movements were predominantly in the opposite direction of that allegedly indicative of deception. The results are discussed in the context of encoding-based cognitive-processing theories. Limitations on the generality of the results are emphasized and the applicability (or lack thereof) of NLP-based lie detection in forensic contexts is discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronson E (1973) The rationalizing animal. Psychology Today 6:46–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley M, Predebon J (1991) Do the eyes have it? A test of neurolinguistic programming’s eye-movement hypothesis. Aust J Clin Hypnother Hypn 12:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandler R, Grinder J (1976) Frogs into princes. Real People Press, Moab, Utah

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson CD (1975) Rational processing or rationalization? The effect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(1):176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem DJ (1965) An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. J Exp Soc Psychol 1(3):199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman LJ (1967) Illusory correlation in observational report. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 6:151–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elich M, Thompson RW, Miller L (1985) Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: a test of neurolinguistic programming. J Couns Psychol 32:622–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer A, Rooney R, Cunningham JR (1985) Hypothesized eye movements of neurolinguistic programming: a statistical artefact. Percept Mot Skills 61:717–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fatout M (1992) Models for change in social group work. Walter de Gruyter Inc, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L, Carlsmith JM (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 58(2):203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gollob HF, Rossman BB, Abelson RP (1973) Social inference as a function of the number of instances and consistency of information presented. J Pers Soc Psychol 27:19–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granhag PA, Vrij A (2005) Deception detection. In: Brewer N, Williams KD (eds) Psychology and law: an empirical perspective. Guildford Press, New York, NY, pp 43–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Graunke B, Roberts T (1985) Neurolinguistic programming: the impact of imagery tasks on sensory predicate usage. Journal of Counselling Psychology 32:525–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall HV, Poirier JG (2000) Detecting malingering and deception: forensic distortion analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80(4):237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapardis A (2003) Psychology and law: a critical introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohnken G (2004) Statement validity analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter GD (2004) Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. Springer, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann S, Vrij A, Nasholm E, Warmelink L, Leal S, Forrester D (2012) The direction of deception: neuro-linguistic programming as a lie detection tool. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 27(2):160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poffel S, Cross HJ (1985) Neurolinguistic programming: a test of the eye-movement hypothesis. Percept Mot Skills 61:1262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ross L, Lepper MR, Hubbard M (1975) Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(5):880–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomason TC, Arbuckle T, Cady D (1980) Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming. Percept Mot Skills 51:230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A, Lochun SK (1997) Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: worthwhile or not? J Police Ciminal Psychol 12(1):25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2000) Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2005) Criteria-based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychol Public Policy Law 11(1):3–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim EH, Habib C, Cumming G (1986) Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements relate to processing imagery. Percept Mot Skills 62:523–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman R, Watt C, ten Brinke L, Porter S, Couper S, Rankin C (2012) The eyes don’t have it: lie detection and neuro-linguistic programming. PLoS One 7(7):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt VY, Dardenne B, Leyens JP (1998) Social judgeability concerns in impression formation. In: Yzerbyt VY, Lories G, Dardenne B (eds) Metacognition: cognitive and social dimensions. Sage, London, pp 126–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

    Flavia Spiroiu

Authors
  1. Flavia Spiroiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flavia Spiroiu.

Appendix (Please contact the author to view interviews used for test trials.)

Appendix (Please contact the author to view interviews used for test trials.)

Mock Crime Interview Script for Practice Clip: Sexual Assault

Q. Why do you think Gina would claim that you forced yourself on her?

Suggested Answer: Well, she was furious with me! I know I made her feel uncomfortable because I told her that I care about her after years of pretending to be interested in men. She said that I did nothing but complicate things between us and ruin a great friendship. She just wasn’t having it.

Q. And exactly why did you lead her to believe that you were homosexual?

Suggested Answer: At the beginning, I never actually claimed I was gay, but just nuanced my behavior so she assumed I was. It made her very comfortable around me and helped me get to know things about her that she wouldn’t have revealed otherwise. I was waiting for a right time to tell her the truth. Anyway, it was a way for me to get closer to her.

Q. So you think you’re pretty bright! How do you account for leaving your shoeprint in her apartment then?

Suggested Answer: I told you that I didn’t harm her, not that I didn’t enter her apartment. I passed by that night for some drinks and mostly to console her since she just recently got out of a bad relationship. I stayed for a while and left. We had work the next morning and I wanted her to rest up anyway.

Q. I guess next you’ll tell me that the threatening voicemail you left on her cell phone is unrelated to the assault, right?

Suggested Answer: That IS right! That’s right....I told this woman how I felt after 3 years, and she said that she would feel uncomfortable working in the same department with me anymore and would ask the VP to transfer her to database marketing. That’s ridiculous, you know! She wouldn’t speak to me so I left a message urging her not to do that because she might end up losing her job!

Q. Man, it’s futile for you to deny this because the DNA from your semen sample matches that taken from the victim. So come clean now!

Suggested Answer: Not possible. Your DNA analysis must be wrong because it obviously led you to the wrong person! I’m not even capable of committing this crime...I’m a religious man, I have a daughter of my own, and frankly just speaking about this is making me ill to my stomach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spiroiu, F. The Impact of Beliefs Concerning Deception on Perceptions of Nonverbal Behavior: Implications for Neuro-Linguistic Programming-Based Lie Detection. J Police Crim Psych 33, 244–256 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9278-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9278-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation