Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 28–35 | Cite as

Positive Effects in Detecting Lies from Training to Recognize Behavioral Anomalies

  • David MatsumotoEmail author
  • Hyisung C. Hwang
  • Lisa G. Skinner
  • Mark G. Frank


We examined whether training in both the verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying would have positive effects on Law Enforcement Officers’ (LEOs) ability to evaluate truths from lies. College course-level training on empirically validated verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying was provided to mid- to advanced-career level LEOs, whose accuracy in detecting lies from truths was assessed pre- and post-training using truthful and deceptive videos of mock crimes and opinions. A marginally significant truth bias existed at pre-test; training, however, resulted in a significant improvement in accuracy rates for both truth and lie videos, and the truth bias that existed at pre-test was eliminated. Additional analyses indicated that accuracy rates improved for videos of mock crimes but not for opinions. These findings add to a small but growing literature that indicates that training on validated verbal and nonverbal indicators of truth telling and lying has positive benefits.


Lie detection Training Statement analysis Nonverbal behaviors Microfacial expressions 


  1. Adams SH, Harpster T (2008) 911 Homocide calls and statement analysis. Fed Bureau of Investig Law Enforcement Bull 77(6):22–31Google Scholar
  2. Adams SH, Jarvis JP (2006) Indicators of veracity and deception: an analysis of written statements made to police. Speech Lang and the Law 13(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:214–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond CF, DePaulo BM (2008) Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias. Psychol Bull 134(4):477–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond GD, Malloy DN, Thompson LA, Arias EA, Nunn SN (2004) Post-probe decision making in a prison context. Commun Monogr 71(3):269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Chalrton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129(1):74–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. deTurck MA, Miller GR (1985) Deception and arousal: isolating the behavioral correlates of deception. Hum Commun Res 16:603–620Google Scholar
  8. Docan-Morgan T (2007) Training law enforcement officers to detect deception: a critique of previous research and framework for the future. Appl Psychol in Crim Justice 3(2):143–171Google Scholar
  9. Duran ND, McCarthy PM, Hall C, McNamara DS (2010) The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics 31:439–462Google Scholar
  10. Ekman P, Friesen WV (1969) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32:88–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekman P, Matsumoto D (2008) Microexpression Recognition Training Tool, Elite (MiX Elite). Available at
  12. Ekman P, O'Sullivan M, Friesen WV, Scherer KR (1991) Invited article: face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. J Nonverbal Behav 15(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekman P, O'Sullivan M, Frank MG (1999) A few can catch a liar. Psychol Sci 10(3):263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feeley TH, deTurck MA, Young MJ (1995) Baseline familiarity in lie detection. Commun Res Rep 12:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank MG, Ekman P (1997) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. J Personal Soc Psychol 72:1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank MG, Feeley TH (2003) To catch a liar: challenges for research in lie detection training. J Appl Commun Res 31(1):58–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank MG, Svetieva E (2013) Deception. In: Matsumoto D, Frank MG, Hwang HS (eds) Nonverbal communication: science and applications. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank MG, Yarbrough JD, Ekman P (2006) Improving interpersonal evaluations: combining science and practical experience. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research, regulation. Willan Publishing, Portland, pp 229–255Google Scholar
  19. Hurley CM, Frank MG (2011) Executing facial control during deception situations. J Nonverbal Behav 35:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson MK (1988) Reality monitoring: an experimental phenomenological approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 117(4):390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson MK, Raye CL (1981) Reality monitoring. Psychol Rev 88(1):67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassin SM, Fong CT (1999) "I'm Innocent!": effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law Hum Behav 23:499–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraut RE (1978) Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. J Personal Soc Psychol 36(4):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landry KL, Brigham JC (1992) The effect of training in criteria-based content analysis on the ability to detect deception in aduts. Law Hum Behav 16(6):663–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine TR, Park HS, McCornack SA (1999) Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: documenting the "veracity effect". Commun Monogr 66:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levine TR, Feeley TH, McCornack SA, Hughes M, Harms CM (2005) Testing the effects if nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. West J Commun 69(3):203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Masip J, Sporer SL, Garrido E, Herrero C (2005) The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence. Psychol Crime and Law 11(1):99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masip J, Alonso H, Garrido E, Herrero C (2009a) Training to detect what? the biasing effects of training on veracity judgments. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:1282–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masip J, Garrido E, Herrero C (2009b) Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias. Psychol Rep 105(1):11–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsumoto D, Hwang HS (2010) Subtle expression recognition training tool: SuBX Professional. Available at
  31. Matsumoto D, Hwang HS (2011) Evidence for training the ability to read microexpressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 35(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matsumoto D, Yoo SH, Fontaine JRJ, Anguas-Wong AM, Arriola M, Ataca B, Grossi E (2008) Mapping expressive differences around the world: the relationship between emotional display rules and individualism v. Collectivism. J Cross-Cult Psychol 39(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matsumoto D, Hwang HS, Skinner L, Frank MG (2011) Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June, 1–11Google Scholar
  34. Mehrabian A (1971) Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. J Exp Res Personal 5:64–73Google Scholar
  35. Newman ML, Pennebaker JW, Berry DS, Richards JM (2003) Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 29:665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O'Sullivan M, Ekman P (2004) The wizards of deception detection. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA (eds) The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O'Sullivan M, Frank MG, Hurley CM (2010) Police lie detection: accuracy, training, and new directions. In: Peters JM (ed) Police psychology. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 75–88Google Scholar
  38. Porter S, ten Brinke L (2008) Reading between the lies: identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychol Sci 19(5):508–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter S, ten Brinke L (2010) The truth about lies: what words in detecting high-stakes deception? Leg Criminol Psychol 15:57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porter S, Yuille JC (1996) The language of deceipt: an investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law Hum Behav 20:443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Porter S, Birt AR, Yuille JC, Lehman DR (2000a) The negotiation of false memories: the influence of interviewer and rememberer characteristics on memory distortion. Psychol Sci 11:513–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter S, Woodworth M, Birt AR (2000b) Truth, lies, and videotape: an investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law Hum Behav 24(6):643–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter S, Juodis M, ten Brinke L, Klein R, Wilson K (2010) Evaluation of the effectiveness of a brief deception detection training program. The J of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychol 21(1):66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porter S, ten Brinke L, Wallace B (2012) Secrets and lies: involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. J Nonverbal Behav 36:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruby CL, Brigham JC (1997) The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations: a critical review. Psychol Publ Policy Law 3(4):705–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith N (2001) Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the Scientific Content Analysis technique (SCAN). London, UK: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: Police Research SeriesGoogle Scholar
  47. ten Brinke L, Porter S, Baker A (2012) Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions reveal emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior Google Scholar
  48. The Global Deception Research Team (2006) A world of lies. J Cross-Cult Psychol 37(1):60–74PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Undeutsch U (1989) The development of statement reality analysis. In: Yuille JC (ed) Credibility assessment. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vrij A (2007) Criteria based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychol Publ Policy Law 11:3–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vrij A, Mann S (2001) Who killed my relative? Police officers' ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychol Crime Law 7:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vrij A, Mann S (2006) Criteria-based content analysis: Am empirical test of its underlying process. Psychol Crime Law 12(4):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Warren G, Schertler E, Bull P (2009) Detecting deception from emotional and unemotional cues. J Nonverbal Behav 33:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zaparniuk J, Yuille JC, Taylor S (1995) Assessing the credibility of true and false statements. Int J Law Psychiatry 18:343–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuckerman M, DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R (1981) Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 14. Academic Press, New York, pp 2–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Matsumoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hyisung C. Hwang
    • 1
  • Lisa G. Skinner
    • 2
  • Mark G. Frank
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySan Francisco State University and Humintell, LLCSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations