You might believe that you know when somebody is telling lies. Almost everyone does. However, decades of research suggest that we are far less accurate than we imagine. We rely on gut feelings and familiar signs, but these signs are weaker clues than most people think (Vrij et al., 2019). The sign people trust most, the inability of a liar to look someone in the eye, does not correlate with lying (DePaulo et al., 2003).
This article looks at how well ordinary people spot deception, why common behavioural “tells” like eye contact, nervousness and body language are not reliable, and what research shows that liars might do differently. It also explains why myths about lying keep going and examines research‑based interview techniques that can be more useful than instinct. Behavioural signs can raise questions. They rarely give answers.
How Good Are We, Really?
Psychologists Charles Bond and Bella DePaulo combined the results of 206 documents covering 24,483 people who tried to separate lies from truths in real time, without special training or tools. On average, people got it right 54% of the time. Random guessing would result in 50% (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). Collectively speaking, 47% of the lies were detected by people, while they managed to believe 61% of true statements. Most people are inclined to give credence to what they hear. This is helpful in real life, as it would be quite difficult to build relationships if one is sceptical of everything and everyone, yet it means that over 50% of lies go undetected by people.
Another finding is worth remembering. People who were highly motivated to be believed tended to appear deceptive, whether or not they were lying (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). Credibility is not judged only from what someone says. Motivation, self-confidence, emotional style, and pressure during a particular event may influence how sincere a person appears. Thus, a person who acts too enthusiastically trying to convince others may feel anxious due to their innocence rather than guilt. Consequently, it becomes difficult to assess an individual’s credibility.
An additional analysis determined that whether someone is regarded as dishonest relies more on the individual who is judged than the individual judging them. Some individuals are seen as convincing and trustworthy while others are not, irrespective of the language they are using (Bond & DePaulo, 2008).
The Eye Contact Myth
If there is one belief about lying that nearly everyone shares, it is that liars avoid eye contact. A large international project asked people in 75 countries and 43 languages how they can tell when someone is lying. The most common answer was that liars look away (Global Deception Research Team, 2006).
Research does not back this up. A major review found very little link between looking away and lying (DePaulo et al., 2003). A belief held around the world appears to be a stereotype, not a reliable sign. There could be many reasons why someone is avoiding looking into their eyes, such as embarrassment, shyness, or differences in cultural norms. Ruling out lack of eye contact as proof of lying can cause misjudgment.
What Liars Actually Do
So do liars behave differently at all? DePaulo and colleagues reviewed 1,338 estimates covering 158 possible clues to deception. Some small patterns appeared. Liars tended to be less forthcoming, told less convincing stories, seemed somewhat more tense, and made a slightly more negative impression (DePaulo et al., 2003). However, many behaviours showed no clear link to lying, or only a weak one. Differences were stronger when people were highly motivated to succeed and when the lie involved wrongdoing. Everyday, low-stakes lies are therefore even harder to read. A more recent review concluded that nonverbal cues to deception remain faint and unreliable, and that people are only mediocre lie-catchers when focusing on behaviour (Vrij et al., 2019).
Faces, Body Language, and Speech
Popular articles often list “tells”: touching the face, crossing the arms, a flash of emotion, or a shaky voice. This behaviour could as easily indicate guilt as nervousness or tiredness. No behaviour can serve as a certain indicator of whether someone is lying or not. People’s behaviours depend on factors such as the risks of telling the truth, the topic being discussed, and people’s personalities (DePaulo et al., 2003).
Language could provide more information than appearance. According to researchers, individuals who are deceiving others tend to provide fewer details while communicating. The study also provided evidence that deception can be recognised more easily through sound than through sight (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). However, just because someone gives a short or simple story does not mean they are lying; there are also plenty of honest stories that are simple or short.
Why the Myths Survive
With evidence this clear, why do the myths last? Vrij and colleagues note that mistaken beliefs about body language and lying are very hard to correct (Vrij et al., 2019). Part of the reason is confirmation bias. People’s belief that a lack of eye contact is related to lying will lead them to intensively notice information that confirms their belief (Vrij et al., 2019). For example, if someone suspects that a nervous person is lying and later finds out that the person was indeed lying, they will feel that they had made the right inference. However, if the honest person avoided making eye contact, nobody would realise the mistake they had made.
Selective recall may further strengthen this pattern. Individuals tend to recall the instances when their suspicion turned out to be right more than the times it failed. We remember when we have spotted a deception, but forget when we did not and how many honest people we have doubted unnecessarily. The major reason there is little opportunity to learn in real life is that the feedback in this case is either delayed, incomplete, or simply missing. As stated by the Global Deception Research Team (2006), real-life instances of deception are usually detected based on external information, confession, or pieces of evidence instead of behavioural signs. Facts often do the work that our instincts only seem to do.
What Actually Helps
Researchers have not given up on lie detection. Instead of watching for tells, they now examine how interviews are run. While doing so, a cognitive method is used that is based on the idea that lying requires mental work. When an interviewer asks an unexpected question or asks for more details, it becomes easier to identify the lie from the truth. For example, rather than asking only about “what the person did yesterday afternoon,” the interviewer can ask them to define, in reverse, the whole story and the surroundings they were in at that time. An honest person will have no difficulty in doing so. They can draw the whole story from their memory. In comparison, the dishonest person will have difficulty coming up with the whole scenario, and their composure may fail.
An analysis of several studies found that the cognitive approach reached an overall accuracy rate of 71%, compared with 56% for standard interviewing (Vrij et al., 2017). While it is evident that these figures reflect success, it should be noted that these are results obtained in a controlled experimental environment and not in complicated real-life situations. A subsequent meta-analysis indicates that actual benefits from these techniques may be lower than expected (Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021).
In reality, these methods are used by trained specialists, such as investigators. These specialists use questioning and compare statements at different points in time. The main idea is to avoid interrogating people. Simply ask questions and listen to complete answers. Also analyse the whole process, not just a single unusual gesture.
Practical takeaways
What should a normal person do with all this? The research offers several recommendations:
- View a “tell” as a question and not as an answer. If you have something that catches your eye, treat it as a way of asking more rather than assuming that the person is lying.
- Ask open-ended questions and listen carefully. You will find out more from details than you will from body language and eye contact.
- Verify the facts where possible. Facts are more accurate than gut feelings.
- Do not forget that anxiety does not mean guilt. Guiltless people get anxious when accused.
- Consider the consequences of being mistaken. Your doubts about a friend, child, or lover can cause more harm than any missed lie.
- Constantly being wary of everyone is not good for the person. When an individual’s distrust becomes a constant figure in their life, it can affect their close relationships negatively or might cause anxiety. Talking to a professional at this time is best, as they will help them analyse their thought patterns.
Conclusion
Fifty-four per cent. That is how often people correctly sorted lies from truths in Bond and DePaulo’s (2006) large review, against 50 per cent for pure guessing. The gap is small, and the usual signs do not widen it much. Looking away, fidgeting, or pausing can come from a guilty mind, but they can just as easily come from a nervous, honest one. A doubt is best treated as a reason to ask another question, not as an answer. Interview methods built on research seem to do better, at least in the lab. The plain lesson is that the less sure someone is about spotting lies, the less likely they are to blame a person who has done nothing wrong.
References +
- Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
- Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477
- DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
- Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295
- Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers? Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3777
- Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
- Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
