Main content

Is it possible to tell when someone might be lying - and what are the clues?

Most of us know Carlo Collodi’s story of Pinocchio: in particular, how his nose grew every time he told a lie.

In Word of Mouth: Lying, Michael Rosen and Laura Wright explore the linguistic characteristics of deception with Dawn Archer. They focus, in particular, on whether - and, if so, how - we can tell someone is lying to us from what they say as well as how they say it (in lieu of relying on the length of their nose!).

Two caveats

We should probably start with two caveats:

  1. There isn’t a “language of deception” per se. As such, it’s better to think in terms of would-be deceivers using language in order to intentionally mislead another for some sort of gain.
  2. There isn’t a “Pinocchio’s nose”, i.e., one language feature, vocal feature or even behavioural feature that – on its own – definitively points to deception (sorry Collodi!).

What we can say, though, is that some language, vocal and behavioural features are associated with (attempts at) deception: especially when they cluster or co-occur within a short timeframe.

Is Denialism really just lying?

Why we are so quick to question data and evidence, even when they seem clear.

ABC

Features that are (often wrongly) believed to identify a liar are: looking away as a means of avoiding prolonged eye gaze, fidgeting more and/or using evasive, non-committal language.

Although some liars might use one or more of these features, all three can also – and most of the time probably do – point to things other than deception in context. For example, individuals belonging to a certain culture are known to adopt a downward eye gaze as a sign of respect. At a more individual level, we know that anxiety can cause some people to avoid direct eye gaze too.

Having mentioned anxiety, it’s worth noting, in addition, that lots of the features that people associate with lying are actually more indicative of anxiety. The takeaway message from this is that, when we want to discover whether someone’s being deceptive or not, we should start with the ABCs.

That is, the account (or “story”) they are attempting to convey and that person’s baseline (i.e., “individualised”) behaviour in a specific context: remembering that we all tend to amend our behaviour according to what we’re doing, who we’re interacting with, whether we (dis)like or can relate to them, feel under pressure, fear being disbelieved, etc.

鈥淣oticing鈥� what we notice

My advice is to not go looking for deception - because we tend to find things we go looking for, even when they’re not there.

Instead, it’s about learning to “notice what we notice”, i.e., the communicative signals that are happening all around us…and, when we see behaviour within, say, 7 seconds of a stimulus that cannot be accounted for by the ABCs (above), only then beginning to hypothesis the “why”.

This is equivalent to paying attention to the message someone “gives” as well as the additional signals they may be “giving off”.

It’s worth noting, too, that “hypothesise” means coming up with more than one possible explanation, as a sole hypothesis that someone is lying is really a conclusion.

Are you a natural born liar?

Professor Richard Wiseman reveals some fascinating facts and an experiment you can do.

Start from an assumption of truth and prioritise inconsistencies

I find it helpful to begin by assuming truth, and to focus on those occasions when an individual subsequently demonstrates inconsistencies across the ABCs.

People start leaking all types of behaviour when they鈥檙e put under too much pressure - whether or not they鈥檙e lying.

These then become my “Points of Interest” (or PIns), which – where possible – I would want to probe (prior to making any conclusions), using a non-adversarial style of interaction that doesn’t put my interlocutor on the defensive.

The reason for adopting a non-adversarial style of engagement is down to research, which suggests that people start leaking all types of behaviour when they’re put under too much pressure - whether or not they’re lying.

PIns are behavioural as well as language-based

As PIns can be behavioural as well as language-based, it is beneficial to look out for instances when someone’s account - and hence language content - is inconsistent with:

  • how they say something, that is, their volume, pitch, voice quality, tone, idiosyncratic interactional style, etc., and/or
  • what their face, body language and autonomic nervous system seem to be communicating.

By way of example, we’ve all had those experiences where someone tells us they’re “fine”. Yet, we couldn’t help but notice their jaw tighten; and we couldn’t help but feel that their vocal tone was warning us not to enquire any further…!

Why do children lie?

What role do parents and school play in developing our ability to lie?

鈥淧ossible鈥� language-based PIns

In terms of specific language-based indicators, we might find ourselves focusing upon at least two - and, preferably several - of the following:

  • changes in pronoun usage - and, potentially, pronoun omission - as well as tense usage (especially where they seem inappropriate, given the activity/context). This might include someone using the past tense to refer to a missing loved one as part of a public appeal for help;
  • increases in - especially spontaneous - negation, disfluencies (such as false starts, filled pauses, etc), negative emotion terms and/or disparaging terms;
  • refusals to discuss certain topics and/or strategies aimed at passing over information, including providing extraneous information, in an attempt to keep an interaction on ‘safe’ topics for the would-be deceiver;
  • other types of distancing behaviour - including hedging devices, stance markers delimiting knowledge, depersonalising devices, words denoting tentativeness, etc;
  • strategies linked to impression management - including but not limited to qualifiers, especially credibility qualifiers, minimisers and particularisers (such as just), representational frames, repetition, etc.

Putting it into practice

In 2002, school caretaker Ian Huntley was interviewed several times by the press after two 10-year-old friends, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, disappeared whilst on a walk following a family BBQ (4 August 2002).

The girls had entered his house, where they were murdered by him.

During the interviews he gave to the press, Huntley lied about the events that took place, and was eventually found guilty of two counts of murder (17 December 2003), and is currently serving life.

One of the interviews Ian Huntley gave with the press was discussed in detail in Word of Mouth, where Michael Rosen and Dr Laura Wright spoke to Professor Dawn Archer, who shared her analysis of the language used and the clues that Ian Huntley was lying.

Listen to Word of Mouth: Lying

More from Radio 4