Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 160–166 | Cite as

The Direction of Deception: Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a Lie Detection Tool

  • Samantha Mann
  • Aldert Vrij
  • Erika Nasholm
  • Lara Warmelink
  • Sharon Leal
  • Dave Forrester


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.


Neuro linguistic programming Deception detection Deceptive behaviour Eye movements Interviewing 


  1. 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 39:1037–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandler R, Grinder J (1979) Frogs into princes. Real People Press, Moab, UtahGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Darley JM, Gross PH (1983) A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. J Personal Soc Psychol 44:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 39:175–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fugita SS, Wexley KN, Hillery JM (1974) Black-white differences in nonverbal behavior in an interview setting. J Appl Soc Psychol 4:343–351Google Scholar
  7. Gordon NJ, Felisher WL, Weinberg CD (2002) Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Hess JE (1997) Interviewing and interrogation for law enforcement. Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. Ickes W (1984) Compositions in black and white: determinants of interaction in interracial dyads. J Personal Soc Psychol 47:330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson MK (1988) Reality monitoring: an experimental phenomenological approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 117:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson RR (2006a) Confounding influences on police detection of suspiciousness. J Crim Just 34:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson RR (2006b) Race and police reliance on suspicious nonverbal cues. Policing Int J Police Strat Manag 30:277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson MK, Raye CL (1981) Reality Monitoring. Psychol Rev 88:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson MK, Foley MA, Suengas AG, Raye CL (1988) Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. J Exp Psychol Gen 117:371–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114:3–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LaFrance M, Mayo C (1976) Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: two systematic observational studies. J Personal Soc Psychol 33:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levine TR, Asada KJK, Park HS (2006) The lying chicken and the gaze avoidant egg: eye contact, deception and causal order. Southern J Commun 4:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 11:99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsumoto D (2006) Culture and nonverbal behavior. In: Manusov V, Patterson ML (eds) The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhoads SA, Solomon R (1987) Subconscious rapport building: another approach to interviewing. Police Chief 4:39–41Google Scholar
  21. Rice M, Harris GT (2005) Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law Human Behav 29:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith A (1983) Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: an assessment of intimacy, gender and race. J Soc Issues 39:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 64–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tesser A (1978) Self-generated attitude change. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (volume 11). Academic Press, New York, pp 288–338Google Scholar
  26. Tulving E (1983) Elements of episodic memory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Vrij A (2004) Invited article: why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Leg Criminol Psychol 9:159–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vrij A (2008) Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. Vrij A, Lochun SK (1997) Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: worthwhile or not? J Police Crim Psychol 12:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vrij A, Granhag PA, Porter SB (2010) Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychol Sci Public Interest 11:89–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samantha Mann
    • 1
  • Aldert Vrij
    • 1
  • Erika Nasholm
    • 1
  • Lara Warmelink
    • 1
  • Sharon Leal
    • 1
  • Dave Forrester
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations