Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 205–215 | Cite as

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

  • Samantha Mann
  • Aldert Vrij
  • Sharon Leal
  • Pär Anders Granhag
  • Lara Warmelink
  • Dave Forrester
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Deception Eye contact Interviewing 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory and Cognition, 33, 727–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton. (Reprinted in 1992 and 2001).Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2002). Repeated interrogations: Verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hocking, J. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective. Communication Monographs, 47, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ickes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of interaction in interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, R. R. (2006a). Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, R. R. (2006b). Race and police reliance on suspicious nonverbal cues. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalma, A., Witte, M., & Zaalberg, R. (1996). Authenticity: Operationalization, manipulation, and behavioural components: An explaration. Medium Psychologie, 8, 49–65.Google Scholar
  20. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassin, S. M. (2008a). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassin, S. M. (2008b). The psychology of confessions. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 4, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Torkildson-Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, G. R., deTurck, M. A., & Kalbfleisch, P. J. (1983). Self-Monitoring, rehearsal, and deceptive communication. Human Communication Research, 10, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 899–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roach, J. (2010). Home is where the heart lies? A study of false address given to police. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sitton, S. C., & Griffin, S. T. (1981). Detection of deception from clients’ eye contact patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: An assessment of intimacy, gender and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. The Global Deception Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vrij, A. (2004). Invited article: Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vrij, A. (2006a). Challenging interviewees during interviews: The potential effects on lie detection. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vrij, A. (2008a). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  49. Vrij, A. (2008b). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1323–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001b). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006b). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 141–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vrij, A., Seminl, & Bull, R. (1996). Insight in behavior displayed during deception. Human Communication Research, 22, 544–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samantha Mann
    • 1
  • Aldert Vrij
    • 1
  • Sharon Leal
    • 1
  • Pär Anders Granhag
    • 2
  • Lara Warmelink
    • 1
  • Dave Forrester
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations