How do Police Officers Think Liars Behave?

How do Police Officers Think Liars Behave?
Which behavioral and auditory cues do people think are associated
with deception? In general terms, people find those behaviors that
deviate from a normal or expected pattern suspicious (Basket &
Freedle, 1974; Bond, Omar, Pitre, Lashley, Skaggs, & Kirk, 1992;
Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, White, & Rockwell, 1996). Thus, eye contact
which is either lacking or lasting too long, or pauses which are either
too short or too long, etc. all make a suspicious impression. In sev-
eral studies people were explicitly asked to indicate how they think li-
ars behave (see Vrij, 2000a, for a review of such studies). In some of
these studies, conducted in various Western countries such as Swe-
den, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, the same questions
have been asked to both laypersons and professional lie catchers
such as police officers (Akehurst et al., 1996; Stromwall & Granhag,
2003; Taylor & Vrij, 2000; Vrij & Semin, 1996; Vrij & Taylor, 2003).
The answers given by these different groups of respondents were re-
markably similar. It appears that there is common belief, at least
among Western white people, about how liars behave. Results
showed that observers associate deception with a high-pitched voice,
many speech hesitations and speech errors, a slow speech rate, a
long latency period (period of silence between question and answer),
many pauses, gaze aversion, a lot of smiling, and an increase in move-
ments. Many of these behaviors are indicators of nervousness. Ap-
parently, the stereotypical belief is that liars are nervous and will
behave accordingly. The surveys have indicated that people, both
laypersons and police officers, particularly associate gaze aversion
and fidgeting with deception. For example, around 75% of police offi-4. POLICE USE OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 73
cers believe that liars look away7
 (Mann, Vrij, & Bull, in press; Vrij &
Semin, 1996) and that they make grooming gestures (Vrij & Semin,
1996). As we saw earlier, most of these behaviors are not related to
deception (such as gaze aversion) or are related to deception in a dif-
ferent way (for example, illustrators and hand/finger movements
tend to decrease during deception rather than increase).
One of the reasons why such incorrect views on deception exist is
that people, including police officers, are taught these wrong cues
(Gordon, Fleisher, & Weinberg, 2002; Hess, 1997; Inbau etal., 1986;
Yeschke, 1997; Zulawski & Wicklander, 1993). Inbau etal. (2001) re-
cently published a new edition of their manual Criminal interroga-
tion and confessions which is an update of their 1986 version (Inbau
et al., 1986). This manual is highly influential and, as Inbau et al.
(2001) point out in their preface, thousands of investigators have
been trained to use the techniques contained within their book. Un-
fortunately, the views described in their book about deceptive indica-
tors of deception are wrong. They describe in detail how, in their view,
liars behave. This includes behaviors such as showing gaze aversion,
displaying unnatural posture changes, fidgeting and placing a hand
over the mouth or eyes when speaking. They based their view on their
extensive experience with interviewing suspects. However, none of
these behaviors are found to be reliably related to deception in decep-
tion research. Neither do Inbau and his colleagues provide any em-
pirical evidence for their claims. Kassin and Fong (1999), however,
trained their participants to look at the cues Inbau and colleagues
claim to be related to deception, and compared the performance of
this group of participants on a subsequent lie detection task with a
group of naive observers who received no information at all. The
trained participants performed significantly worse compared to the
naive observers, which is not surprising given the poor level of train-
ing these participants had received. More academics have expressed
their concern about police training regarding lie detection (Ekman,
1985; Moston, 1992; Granhag & Stromwall, 1999).
Having incorrect views about cues to deception may have serious
consequences for some groups of people, namely those whose natural
behavior fits the Western white stereotype of deceptive behavior. Some
individuals' nonverbal behavior gives the impression that they are tell-
ing the truth (honest demeanor bias), whereas others' natural behav-
ior leaves the impression that they are lying (dishonest demeanor bias)
(Riggio, Tucker, & Throckmorton, 1988; Riggio, Tucker, & Widaman,
1987; Vrij, 1993; Vrij & Van Wijngaarden, 1994; Vrij & Winkel, 1992b;
Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal, 1979). This is re-
lated to personality traits. Expressive people, for example, exude
credibility, regardless of the truth of their assertions. It is not that they
are particularly skilled at lying, but their spontaneity tends to disarm
suspicion, which makes it easier for them to get away with their lies
(Riggio, 1986). On the other hand, people with a strong sense of public74 VRIJ AND MANN
self-consciousness tend to make a less credible impression on others,
regardless of whether they are telling the truth. These are individuals
who, while lying, are concerned about being scrutinized by others,
which changes their behavior in such a way that it appears dishonest.
Introverts and socially anxious people also impress others as being
less credible. The social clumsiness of introverts and the impression
of tension, nervousness or fear that is natural to socially anxious
individuals is interpreted by observers as indicators of deception.
Interestingly, their demeanor seems not to accurately reflect their
behavior. For example, introverted people do not lie frequently (Kashy
& DePaulo, 1996). Introverts also commit fewer crimes than
extraverts (Eysenck, 1984). Furthermore, socially anxious people are
less likely to persist in lying as soon as they are challenged (Vrij &
Holland, 1998).
People also differ in how they present themselves when discussing
emotional experiences. For example, research with rape victims has
distinguished two basic styles of self-presentation, an 'expressed' style
in which the victim displays distress which is clearly visible to outsid-
ers, and a more controlled 'numbed' style in which cues of distress are
not clearly visible (Burgess, 1985; Burgess & Homstrom, 1974). Al-
though the styles represent a personality factor and are not related to
deceit (Littman & Szewczyk, 1983), they have a differential impact on
the perceived credibility of victims. Emotional victims are more
readily believed than victims who report their experience in a more
controlled manner (Baldry, Winkel, & Enthoven, 1997; Kaufmann,
Drevland, Wessel, Overskeid, & Magnussen, 2003; Vrij & Fisher,
1997; Winkel & Koppelaar, 1991).
Various ethnic minority groups are also in a disadvantageous posi-
tion due to the behavior they naturally display. Afro-American people
display more gaze aversion than white American people (LaFrance &
Mayo, 1976), and people from Turkey and Morocco who are living in
the Netherlands show more gaze aversion than native Dutch people
(Vrij, 2000a; Vrij, Dragt, & Koppelaar, 1992). Such differences are
caused by the fact that gaze patterns are influenced by culture, and that
looking into the eyes of a conversation partner is regarded as polite in
Western cultures but is considered to be rude in several other cultures
(Vrij & Winkel, 1991; Vrij, Winkel, & Koppelaar, 1991).
In the Netherlands, we examined the nonverbal behavioral patterns
of white native Dutch and black Surinam citizens (citizens originated
from Surinam, a former Dutch colony, but now living in the Nether-
lands) during simulated police interviews (Vrij & Winkel, 1991). Both
a Dutch and a Surinamese interviewer were used, but this had no im-
pact on the findings. Surinam people made more speech disturbances
(speech fillers such as 'ah', 'um', 'er' and stutters), exhibited more gaze
aversion, smiled more often, and made more self manipulations
(scratching the head, wrists, and so on) and illustrators (hand and
arm movements designed to modify and/or supplement what is being4. POLICE USE OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 75
said verbally), regardless of whether they were lying or not. These be-
haviors show an overlap with the behaviors Western white people be-
lieve liars display, suggesting that typical "Surinam" behavior in
experiments in Holland correspond with behavior that makes a suspi-
cious impression on Western white observers. This gives rise to possi-
ble cross-cultural nonverbal communication errors during cross-
cultural interactions. That is, nonverbal behavioral patterns that are
typical for Surinam people in these settings may be interpreted by
Western white observers as revealing attempts to hide the truth. We
tested this idea in a series of experiments (Vrij & Winkel, 1992a, 1994;
Vrij et al., 1991). Videotapes were made of simulated police interviews
in which native Dutch and Surinam actors participated. Different ver-
sions were made of each interview. The actors demonstrated typical
'Dutch' behavior in one version of the interviews (for example, showed
a limited amount of gaze aversion) and typical "Surinam" nonverbal
behavior in another version of the interviews (showed more gaze aver-
sion). Dutch white police officers were exposed to one version of each
interview and were asked to indicate to what extent the actor made a
suspicious impression. The actors consistently made a more suspi-
cious impression when they demonstrated "typical Surinam behavior"
than when they exhibited "typical Dutch behavior." These findings sup-
port the assumption that cross-cultural nonverbal communication
errors do occur during cross-cultural interactions, and that nonverbal
behavioral patterns that are typical for an ethnic group are often
interpreted by Western white observers as signs of deception