Can you spot a lie by eye movement?

Author’s Native Language:

If you think it is possible to identify a lie by eye movement and conclude that someone is lying, it is best to read this post very carefully.

♦ TIP

Yet another study (of many), published in the journal PLoS ONE, contradicts the widespread notion that you can tell that a person is lying by the way their eyes move.

♦ FACT

Eye movement is not a reliable indicator of lying. Let’s look at the reasons.

According to nonverbal communication enthusiasts, a person whose eye shifts to the left means they remember something, while a shift to the right means they are creating a version (in many cases, this means lying).

When you hear some of so-called specialists speaking, you get enchanted ….. A good number of them have excellent oratory skills and can reproduce the content of books in oral form.

Having a good memory, the speed with which they can elaborate their arguments is surprising. However, the wonder stops there….

Aren’t there people who fall for a foreign boyfriend’s scam despite so much warning on the subject? Human behavior is like that.

Is the available knowledge to the population reliable?

In the trainings I teach, I have been promoting a critical view in students about what they will find, courses that will be offered by unqualified people and literature on body language that is nothing more than copies of previously published books…. and also about the risks of using pseudoscience as an authoritative strategy in persuasive communication.

I like a definition that the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines “nonsense” as “something” that is designed to impress, but that
was constructed without direct concern for the truth.

♦ ATTENTION

There are many ways to hide intentions, and there are people especially capable of doing so.

51 renowned researchers signed on as authors of a study on the issue of reliability of books and training offered to the population, arguing the following (Denault et al., 2020, p.2):

Unfortunately, dubious concepts about non-verbal communication are widely disseminated, mainly on the Internet and in books aimed at the general public, as well as in seminars and conferences (things like: “body language never lies”).

The use of such concepts can have negative and perhaps even disastrous consequences (Denault, 2015; Kozinski, 2015; Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008). For example, security and justice professionals who are unfamiliar with the “peer review” process may be misled into believing that these dubious concepts are scientific and give them completely unwarranted authority (Jupe & Denault, 2018). [emphasis added]

Regarding the risks of pseudoscience, for more than a decade I have been arguing that television series are good for entertainment.

♦ TIP

I have also explained that the behavior analysis of artists, politicians and athletes, especially those carried out by people without any scientific training, are forms of entertainment.

Those analyses often expose people to ridicule and raise hypotheses about their emotions and other private behaviors. Normally, this exposure of the subject is done by people without any real preparation.

A well-prepared person with scientific and ethical knowledge does not carry out public analyses. The Brazilian Psychology Code of Ethics, for example, prohibits a psychologist from participating in behavior analyzes of specific people in the media. This looks like the freak shows from the 19th century, reimagined. 

At that time, it was common for people with deformities to be exposed for the public to see. Today, we have YouTube and other networks to perform the same task.

How is it possible to promote myths as acceptable “tips”?

The figure below was taken from a website and NLP. Note the inclusion of the word “probable” in the title of the figure below.

♦ FACT

It commom to include the word “probable” will help to “explain” disagreements, in case the technique does not work and there is some question.

Another example [add in Portuguese] of how to camouflage low quality scientific information. The author suggests that everything can “vary”. 

On a portal about behavior there is the following article:

♦ ATTENTION

In this specific case, the caveat is that indicators may vary depending on the situation and the person ( What’s left to not vary then?) Be careful with this type of matter. Stay tuned!

What are the reasons people consume pseudoscience? What are the risks of pseudoscience?

The authors raise some of these reasons (Denault et al., 2020, p.8):

The reasons for irrational beliefs have been the subject of extensive scientific literature. People’s critical thinking skills, political and religious ideologies, as well as cognitive abilities and scientific knowledge are some of these reasons (…).

But why do some organizations in the areas of security and justice resort to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques?

For an international scientific community that has published thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication, it may seem surprising that these organizations adopt programs, methods, and approaches that, at first glance, They sound scientific, but in reality they aren’t. We offer five hypotheses about why some organizations turn to pseudoscience.

So, they present five reasons for the consumption of pseudoscience:

• • Organizations have real problems to solve… So if someone appears claiming to have developed a method that solves the problem, the temptation to test such an approach is very great;
  • Not all decision makers have the skills to discern what scientific knowledge really is;
  • Many decision makers ignore the importance of science;
  • The risks of pseudoscience are underestimated by the organizations that adopt it;

They point out that part of it is the responsibility of the researchers themselves. They argue about this (Denault et al., 2020, p.8):

Finally, when organizations in the fields of security and justice have unrealistic expectations arising from television series and other popular media, and if turn to pseudoscience, part of the responsibility lies with the international scientific community (Colwell, Miller, Miller, & Lyons, 2006; Denault & Jupe, 2017).

Indeed, “the scientific process does not stop when results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Broader communication is also involved, and this includes ensuring not only that information (including uncertainties) is understood, but also that misinformation and errors are corrected when necessary.” (Williamson, 2016, p. 171).

About the risks of pseudoscience, for over a decade I have been arguing that television series are good for entertainment.

♦ TIP

I have also explained that behavior analysis of artists, politicians and athletes, especially those carried out by people without any scientific training, are forms of entertainment.

These analyzes often expose people to ridicule, raising hypotheses about their emotions and other private behaviors. Normally this exposure of the subject is done by people without any real preparation.

A well-prepared person, with knowledge scientific and ethical does not carry out public analyses. The Code of Ethics of Psychology, for example, prohibits a psychologist from participating in behavior analyzes of specific people in the media. This looks like the freak shows of the 19th century, revamped. At that time, it was common for people with deformities to be exposed for the public to see. Today, we have YouTube and other networks to perform the same task.

I have also dedicated myself, for a long time, to clarifying the myths and risks of pseudoscience, which arise from scientific work.

Pay attention to the most known and worldwide myth – that 93% of communication is non-verbal.

Recent research that debunks the myth of eye movement lying

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Hertfordshire (Wiseman et al, 2012) carried out a series of experiments to put this creed of neurolinguistic programming to test. At the end of the article see a list of other studies that reach the same conclusion.

They recruited 32 right-handed subjects, recording their eye movements when they lied or told the truth. Upon analysis, there appeared to be no connection between eye movement and the truth or falsity of participants’ statements.

In another experiment, researchers showed 50 volunteers some videos. Half of them received information about eye movement lie detection techniques from NLP, while the other half were not informed.

They were then instructed to identify which people were telling the truth or lying. Based on the results, the researchers found no link between eye movement and telling the truth or lying. There was also no significant difference in the accuracy assessment of those who were informed about NLP and the other subjects.

Reading a book on NLP techniques is like seeing the juxtaposition of parts of theories without any commitment to technical rigor in articulating different theoretical frameworks.

Ordinary citizens, without the training to analyze the viability of these literary fantasies, believe that what is there is scientific (especially because talking about its supposed scientific basis is a known technique used to spread NLP). He will notice failures when trying to put his knowledge into practice.

See more articles about NLP

If you’ve made it this far I recommend you read my article: Corporate Psychopaths – the modern taskmasters and you will see how many of the propagators of these myths have similar characteristics.

Original Article: January 21, 2013

Updated: October 27, 2023

Watch the following video about the most famous body language myth:

References

Bensley. D.A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychological misconceptions: Recent scientific advances and unresolved issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 377-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417699026

Bensley, D. A., Lilienfeld, S., & Powell, L. A. (2014). A new measure of psychological misconceptions: Relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.009

Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 1177-1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.971946

Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, G., & Cannon, T. D., (2018). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005

Colwell, L. H., Miller, H. A., Miller, R. S., & Lyons, P. M. (2006). US police officers’knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500254839

Denault, V. (2015). Communication non verbale et crédibilité des témoins [Nonverbal communication and the credibility of witnesses]. Cowansville, Montreal: Yvon Blais.

Denault, V., & Jupe, L. M. (2017). Justice at risk! An evaluation of a pseudoscientific analysis of a witness’ nonverbal behavior in the courtroom. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29, 221-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1358758

Denault, V. et al. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Yearbook of Legal Psychology, 30(1), 1–12.

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225

Jupe, L. M., & Denault, V. (2018). Science or pseudoscience? A distinction that matters for police officers, lawyers and judges. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kozinski, A. (2015). Criminal law 2.0. Georgetown Law Review, 44, iii-xliv

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1215-1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321526

Majima, Y. (2015). Belief in pseudoscience, cognitive style and science literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 552-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136

Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of consulting psychology, 31(3), 248.

Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of personality and social psychology, 6(1), 109.

Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 658(1), 36-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474

Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-deep bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563.

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G., (2018). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011

Shen, F. X., & Gromet, D. M. (2015). Red states, blue states, and brain states: Issue framing, partisanship, and the future of neurolaw in the United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 86-101.

Williamson, P. (2016). Take the time and effort to correct misinformation. Nature, 540(7632), 171. https://doi.org/10.1038/540171a

Other studies on lying and eye movement

Neurolinguistic Programming – Eye Movement