Home Stats & Services Reports and Publications LEB June 2011 Evaluating Truthfulness and Detecting Deception

Evaluating Truthfulness and Detecting Deception Table of Contents

By DAVID MATSUMOTO, Ph.D., HYI SUNG HWANG, Ph.D., LISA SKINNER, J.D., and MARK FRANK, Back to the Cover
Ph.D.
Evaluating Truthfulness and Detecting Deception
By David Matsumoto, Hyi Sung Hwang, Lisa Skinner, and Mark
Frank
By recognizing certain clues, investigators effectively can identify
deception.

Donning and Doffing Police Uniforms and Protective Gear

By Richard G. Schott
Police agencies must examine their policies concerning uniform
and equipment issues.

Perspective
Determining the Best Fit for University Policing

Leadership Spotlight
Self-Centered Leadership

While interviewing the suspect who claims ignorance about an incident, the witness who saw it happen, Research Forum
or the informant who identified the perpetrator, the detective asks a question that will eviscerate the Coping with the Career
perpetrators story. As the suspect prepares to answer, he looks up and to the left, purses his lips,
Bulletin Report
tenses his eyelids, and brings his eyebrows down.
Girls Delinquency
The investigator knows that a suspect displaying shifty eyes and gaze aversion and looking up and to The Bulletin Notes
the left when answering uncomfortable questions is exhibiting signs of lying. The suspect is not totally
disinterested, but he is reluctant to participate in the interview. Because the suspects behavior suggests Patch Call
dishonesty, the detective prepares to drill still deeper in the questioning. LEB Home
Unfortunately, this investigator likely would be wrong. Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies
published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have
rejected this hypothesis.1 No scientific evidence exists to suggest that eye behavior or gaze aversion
can gauge truthfulness reliably.

Some people say that gaze aversion is the sure sign of lying, others that fidgety feet or hands are the
key indicators. Still others believe that analysis of voice stress or body posture provides benchmarks.
Research has tested all of these indicators and found them only weakly associated with deception.2

Relying on false clues, or signs, about lying can have dire consequences.3 It can lead to inaccurate
reads that witnesses, suspects, or informants are lying when they are not or that they are telling the truth
when there is more to the story. Reliance on false clues leads to misplaced confidence about the
strengths and weaknesses of cases and can lead an investigator down dead-end paths. Moreover, a
false read can have deadly consequences.

BEHAVIORAL CUES

Years of research have led the authors to focus solely on the most verifiable behavioral cues to lying.4
Many studies have involved a randomly selected sample of people assigned by chance to lie or tell the
truth. Unfortunately, such studies feature participants with no personal, financial, or emotional
investment in the lie or any fear of exposure to sanction if they are caught. No stakes are involvedno

punishment for getting caught and no reward for fooling the investigator.

The authors studies involve people motivated to act against a person or group with a different ideology,
placed in a situation where they choose whether to commit a crime (e.g., steal a check made out to the
group they despise), and then interviewed by a retired law enforcement officer, offering them the
opportunity to tell the truth or lie. The stakes involved include facing detention, enduring blasts of white
noise, or, for instance, having the stolen check donated to the group they hate. These consequences
would occur if the person were not believed regardless of the truth because, in real life, consequences
stem from judgments, not reality. Thus, truthful individuals often are nervous in police interrogations. The
authors strive to make their research practical and analogous to real-world law enforcement situations
and have found that, clearly, the behavioral cues to lying differ when people are not vested in having
their story believed and have no fear of detection.

The authors monitor their participants with sensors that record and analyze their facial behaviors,
gestures, body movements, voice and speech characteristics, physiological indicators (e.g., heart rate,
blood pressure, skin conductance, respiration), heat emanation from their faces and heads, pupil
dilation, and gaze direction. In addition, the authors record their participants' spoken words and then
examine their verbal statements and style. The results have demonstrated that when motivated people
lie and face consequences upon detection, clues to deception emerge and appear as leakage across
multiple channels. Four of these are nonverbal (facial expressions, gestures and body language, voice,
and verbal style). A fifth channel of leakage is in the actual words spokenverbal statements.

It is not the mere presence or absence of behaviors, such as gaze aversion or fidgeting, that indicates
lying. Rather, it is how these nonverbal cues change over time from a persons baseline and how they
combine with the individuals words. And, when just the behavioral cues from these sources are
considered, they accurately differentiate between lying and truth telling.5

Dr. Matsumoto is a professor of Dr. Hwang is a research Special Agent Skinner is Dr. Frank is a professor
psychology at San Francisco scientist at a private an instructor in the Law of communication and
State University and currently is training and Enforcement director of the
Communication Communication Science
director of a private training and consulting firm in
Resources Unit at the FBI Center at the University
consulting firm in California. California.
Academy. at Buffalo in New York.

The findings from these studies also have clearly indicated that no one indicator of lying exists; if so,
research would have identified it by now, and almost everyone could unerringly detect when people lie.
Of course, this would put an end to most competitive card games and prove generally destructive to
society. No one could be polite, society would not function, and most groups and relationships would fall
into chaos.

Because liars facing stakes betray their untruth by leakage that

comes across as a complicated mass of signals, investigators
make adequately processing this stream of information more
difficult when focusing on inconsistencies in the story, rather
than how it is told. The problem is that the liar also focuses on
presenting a consistent, albeit false, story. Ironically, liars also
wrestle with their emotions and thoughts, actively trying to
manage facial and body expressions, voice tone, verbal style,
and wordsall while monitoring the investigators reaction. This
allows reliable indicators of lies to pop out in the verbal and
nonverbal leakage, which investigators often overlook because
of their intense focus on the story.

VERBAL AND NONVERBAL LEAKAGE

Lies can be betrayed in verbal and nonverbal leakage

independently. However, the authors have chosen to further examine this area, analyzing the combined
contribution of verbal and nonverbal leakage to the prediction of deception or truthfulness. In their latest
study, the authors examined videos of dedicated members of ideologically motivated groups. Separate
studies analyzed two types of lies. One involved participants in a situation in which they chose whether
to steal $50 in cash from a briefcase and later were interviewed about their guilt (the crime scenario). In
another analysis, participants decided to lie or tell the truth about their beliefs concerning their political
cause (the opinion scenario). Each instance involved stakesif researchers judged them as lying, the
subjects lost their participation fee and faced 1 hour of white-noise blasts while sitting on a cold, steel
chair in a small, cramped room.

The authors selected videos of 10 individuals from each scenario and knew beforehand that half told the
truth and half lied. After coding their nonverbal behaviorsfacial expressions and gesturesthe authors
judged their consistency with the speech content according to time and context. The authors also
transcribed what the participants said and annotated their statements using the concepts and linguistic
features of statement analysis, such as examining minimizing and intensifying adverbs, editing adverbs,
alterations in verb tense, equivocation, unique sensory details, and changes in nouns.

Analyses by the authors indicated that the liars produced significantly more nonverbal behaviors
inconsistent with the context or content of their words than truth tellers. For example, a participant in the
crime scenario may have denied stealing the check, but showed fear or distress while making that claim.
Conversely, the nonverbal behaviors (e.g., nodding their heads up and down while saying yes) of truth
tellers remained much more consistent with their verbal statements. Interestingly, the nonverbal
behaviors by themselves were not as indicative of truth telling or lying; instead, it was their level of
consistency with the verbal statements or context that determined truthfulness at a high degree.

Also, the various statement analysis categories that were coded could differentiate liars from truth tellers
at statistically significant levels. Greater use of minimizing and editing adverbs and changes in nouns
and verbs all were associated with lying, while equivocation and spatial details indicated truth telling.
These findings confirmed previous research on statement analysis.6

While these findings remained consistent with previous

research, the authors also combined the nonverbal leakage and
statement analysis cues in attempting to differentiate truth tellers
from liars. The authors found that inconsistent facial expressions
combined with statement analysis annotations could correctly
classify 90 percent of the participants in the videos as to
whether they lied or told the truth. This seems to indicate that
behavioral cues in both verbal statements and nonverbal
behaviors collectively provide a much better source for gauging
truthfulness. This potentially provides investigators with powerful
aids in conducting investigations and interrogations.7

DETECTION OF LIES

Nonverbal Examination

Investigators can improve their ability to detect lies by becoming more aware of and skillful in reading the
nonverbal cues to lying. In examining such important nonverbal behaviors as gestures, voice, and verbal
style, officers first must focus on the facial expressions of emotion, especially those known as micro- and
subtle expressions, because these both are involuntary and have demonstrated association with
deception.8

Microexpressions are fleeting expressions of concealed emotion, sometimes so fast that they happen in
the blink of an eyeas fast as one-fifteenth of a second. This results from the individuals attempt to
hide them. They generally go unnoticed in daily social interactions; the most reliable evaluations are
done by the review of slow- and stop-motion videotape of the speaker.

However, people can learn to see them in real time. For instance, trainees at the FBI National Academy
typically can increase their recognizion of microexpressions to above 70 percent, in some cases over 90
percent; studies on other populations, including U.S. Coast Guard senior investigating officers, have
shown average posttraining accuracy of better than 80 percent.9 These same officers almost doubled
their ability to accurately read individuals who displayed these microexpressions in real-world, real-time
settings. This ability is retained weeks after initial training.10

Facial expressions of emotion, including macro-, micro-, and subtle expressions, are universal and
independent of race, culture, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, religion, or any other demographic
variable. All people express emotions on their faces in exactly the same ways. Moreover, they are
immediate, automatic, and unconscious reactions. These are incredible characteristics of facial
expressions because learning to read them means that someone can have a bigger window into the
soul of almost anyone. It is a powerful tool for investigators because facial expressions of emotion are
the closest thing humans have to a universal language.

Statement Analysis
Investigators also can improve their ability to detect lies by becoming skillful at statement analysis, which
applies internalized grammatical rules that stem from the language acquisition part of the brain to an
individuals written or spoken words. In fact, people apply these rules to what they read and hear every
day when they make a judgment about whether or not something is truthful or deceptive. While people
may say that their belief is based upon their gut, in reality, their brain is applying these internalized
grammatical rules to the information. By doing so, investigators can gain valuable insight into a persons
thoughts, motivations, and ideas.

Statement analysis involves examining several aspects of someones words, including verbs describing
communication and uncompleted action; changes in verb tense; minimizing, intensifying, and editing
adverbs; extraneous information; unique sensory details; and statement structure, which identifies the
persons focuson the incident or somewhere else. Research has shown that distinct differences exist
between a deceptive statement and a truthful one. By using the techniques of statement analysis,
investigators can more readily detect truthfulness or deception in an individuals words. With these
insights, investigators become more efficient and effective in their abilities and gain better focus on the
investigation.

Proper Perspective

Investigators must remember that no silver bullet for

identifying deception exists. Detecting microexpressions or
inconsistent facial expressions of emotion and identifying areas
of interest in a verbal statement via statement analysis never
should be considered indicative of lying by themselves. Instead,
they comprise tools that officers can use to guide them through
an interview or interrogation. They help identify areas that need
further probingconcealed thoughts, feelings, opinions, and
omissions of parts of the story. But, investigators should keep in
mind that these behaviors could result from reasons other than
lying; perhaps, the suspect or witness feels embarrassed or
fears retaliation by talking to the police. Or, maybe, the officer
has not established a relationship or has physically threatened
the suspect. This shows the importance of building rapport; it
reduces the amount of ambient anxiety found in any law enforcement interview. Thus, recognition of
facial expressions of emotion and statement analysis represent important tools that investigators can
add to their toolkit to help them conduct interviews and interrogations more efficiently and accurately.
But, like any such tool, they need to be supplemented with corroborating statements, physical and
forensic evidence, and hard work. And, in the authors' experience, the best lie catchers do not jump to
conclusions early based solely on facial expressions or word usage. Instead, they use them as a guide
through an interview to get the best information possible. This enables further elicitation of information
and better comparisons and contrasts with other statements and physical evidenceall of which lead to
more informed decisions.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Training and practice can help individuals and groups leverage facial expressions of emotion, other
nonverbal behaviors, and statement analysis to better evaluate truthfulness, detect deception, and
assess credibility. Improving these skills makes for a better interviewer and investigator. Although
difficult, mastering such methods can make the officer faster, more efficient, and more accurate in
conducting interviews. Investigators can follow some pointers to apply these skills in their police work.

If, while interviewing suspects, witnesses, or informants, investigators see a microexpression

inconsistent with the words spoken or the emotions described, they should follow up until they can
achieve reconciliation or get a more complete answer. For example, if suspects flash fear, distress, or
contempt when saying they were nowhere near the scene of the crime, they may be omitting some of
the story. Interviewers should probe that particular statement.

Similarly, if suspects show disgust when talking about another person, what does that mean? It depends
on the context. Saying, for instance, they are not a fan of someone suggests that they truly dislike the
individual. A statement like Hes a great guy suggests the suspect is lying.

Informants who show contempt when investigators request of them a particular action show a level of
distrust. This suggests a need for better rapport before officers make the request.

When witnesses leak expressions inconsistent with their

statements, their emotions show investigators how to dig
deeper to unearth the hidden story. For instance, flashing fear
when talking about the suspect may indicate that a witness
feels threatened by the individual and, thus, apprehensive
about sharing all details. Or, witnesses may fear getting
caught lying about their relationship to the suspect.
Regardless, something about the suspect has produced an
involuntary reaction in the witness. If investigators identify the
emotion, they can leverage it to obtain the real story.

After taking a written statement from a suspect, investigators

should apply statement analysis techniques to identify key
areas to pursue in the interview. For example, if a suspects
statement jumps in sequence from the early evening to the
next morning, ignoring the time that the crime occurred, it
likely would be noted by editing adverbs (e.g., then, later).
Additionally, noting changes in noun and pronoun usage and verbs of communication can prove critically
important as they can signify areas for further exploration. Once officers complete their analysis, they

can begin the interview by jumping straight to such areas in the statement, thereby catching suspects off
guard because of the immediate attention on the part of their statement where they feel vulnerable.

When questioning the suspect, investigators should watch their emotions and other nonverbal
behaviors. Signs will arise that something meaningful was glossed over. For instance, suspects showing
fear or distress when officers jump straight to a particular point in time may indicate that there was
something to hide. Conversely, displaying surprise or, perhaps, nothing, may show that the skipping was
incidental.

When an interview turns into an interrogation, officers can use the signs of emotion to know when to
push further or retreat. For example, if suspects show anger, contempt, or disgust, it may, but not
always, be best to stop and try another approach. However, if they show fear, it might be time to drill
deeper. If they show distress, they may be about to call it off. In this instance, investigators should use
logical reasons as to why the suspect may have committed the crime and continue to press for the
confession. Understanding facial expressions also can let investigators know when someone fakes an
emotion. Sometimes, a person may express anger at being accused. Is it real? A liar more likely will fake
anger. Officers who know all of the signs of anger more accurately can determine the authenticity of
anger. The same rules apply to happiness. There is a reliable signal within a smile for a genuine feeling
of happiness, and, if investigators know that, they can tell whether a person who says they feel very
happy at that moment actually are experiencing happiness.

CONCLUSION

Because of the subtlety of microexpressions, other facial expressions of emotion, and cues in verbal
statements, investigators must devote focused attention to detect them. In many situations, interviewers
focus primarily on a suspect's story, rather than how they tell it or what they show while conveying it.
Investigators must do more than simply be aware of expressions while not allowing such multitasking to
dilute their skills.

With training and practice, investigators can become more aware of what they see in the form of
microexpressions and hear as they apply the concepts of statement analysis. Officers should become
aware of microexpressions and how to spot them, as well as the basic techniques of statement analysis.
They should learn them well enough so that they become automatic and, rather than interfere with their
processing of interviews, augment their skill set. In doing so, they will be armed with powerful
investigative tools that leverage the most cutting-edge
science available.

Endnotes
1
C.F. Bond, A. Omar, A. Mahmoud, and R.N. Bonser, "Lie Detection Across Cultures," Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior 14 (1990): 189-204.
2 B.M. DePaulo, J.J. Lindsay, B.E. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper, "Cues to
Deception," Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 1
(2003): 74-118.
3
The use of popularly held beliefs about indicators of truth and untruth still proves relevant for
investigators, particularly if others, such as suspects, believe them and investigators can leverage those
beliefs to obtain truth.
4
M.G. Frank, T.H Feeley, T.N. Servoss, and N. Paolantonio, "Detecting Deception by Jury, I: Judgmental
Accuracy," Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 13 (2004): 45-59.
5
M.G. Frank, "Thoughts, Feelings, and Deception," in Deception: Methods, Motives, Context, and
Consequences, ed. B. Harrington (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 55-73; and M.G.
Frank, M. O'Sullivan, and M.A. Menasco, "Human Behavior and Deception Detection," in Handbook of
Science and Technology for Homeland Security, ed. J.G. Voeller (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, in
press).
6
A. Vrij, "Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies," Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law 11 (2007): 3-41.
7
Moreover, post hoc forensic analyses of the 10 percent misclassified strongly suggest a unique role for
minimizing and editing adverbs. These occurred in individuals relatively sparse in their expressivity, as
well as verbal output. Thus, the cues to deception in such individuals may be very subtle, and the
authors believe that one area in which such cues may occur may be in the use of minimizing or editing
adverbs.
8
M.G. Frank and P. Ekman, "The Ability to Detect Deceit Generalizes Across Different Types of High-

Stake Lies," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1997): 1429-1439; and G. Warren, E.
Schertler, and P. Bull, "Detecting Deception from Emotional and Unemotional Cues," Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior 33 (2009): 59-69.
9
M.G. Frank, D. Matsumoto, P. Ekman, S. Kang, and A. Kurylo, "Improving the Ability to Recognize
Microexpressions of Emotion" (manuscript submitted for publication).
10
D. Matsumoto and H.S. Hwang, "Training the Ability to Read Microexpressions of Emotion Improves
Emotional Competence on the Job" (manuscript submitted for publication).
 Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice

Close