By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
On a recent trip returning to the U.S., I was eyed closely as I answered a series of apparently mundane questions from the uniformed American agent. Where was I born? Where do I live in the U.S.? How long had I been gone? What cities had I visited? And so on. My interviewer may have been a “Behavior Detection Officer,” a role described in a recent article in The New York Times focusing on the program in which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invested over $1 billion in order to train screeners to read body language in order to identify potential terrorists. By checking to see who seems stressed, who is blinking too fast, who is averting their eyes or looking up and to the left, the trainers and their government pupils believe that they can improve their odds at spotting liars. But after a review, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is recommending that the program be cut off, for one simple reason: It doesn’t work. A thorough review of the science, including a review of more than 200 studies (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), the conclusion is that people are notoriously bad lie detectors, and training just seems to serve to increase people’s confidence in their lie-detecting ability, but not their actual performance in it.
Focusing on what are supposed to be the classic “tells” of deception, the ability of human lie detectors tends to hover at about the same level as chance: 47 percent correct in spotting a liar and 61 percent correct in spotting a truth teller. Despite this, the TSA and scores of other law enforcement agencies continue to invest heavily in that training. More than science, that emphasis reflects a folk belief that body language must be important. Based on all the attention we put into it, people are led to think that there must be some kind of definite and reliable meaning in it. But the reality is more complicated. Yes, nonverbal communication matters as part of the message. But, no, it does not carry clearly defined or universal meanings that make it a reliable test of credibility and truthfulness. Both sides of that equation carry some important implications for legal persuaders. For the witness on the stand evaluating the jurors during testimony, it means you cannot really tell what they’re thinking. But for those jurors looking back and evaluating the witness, it means that at least some of them will feel that they can gauge honesty by looking at the witness’s body language. And the legal instructions will even aid and abet that focus by telling jurors to look at “demeanor.” In this post, I’ll take a look at the disconnect between our beliefs on body language and the scientific reality, along with some of the implications for legal communicators.
The Proof: No Case for Reliable Body Language
The New York Times piece on the fated TSA program is worth a read. It does a good job of pulling together and explaining the scientific results. While a belief in a body language that we can specifically read and rely on has sold many books and even served as a prop for some litigation consultants who have claimed the ability to “read” jurors’ nonverbals during voir dire and trial, the lack of scientific support for the idea is a little surprising. The Times article pulls together a number of explanations from some leading academics on the subject, and here are my favorites:
- “The commonsense notion that liars betray themselves through body language appears to be little more than a cultural fiction” (Maria Hartwig, John Jay College of Criminal Justice).
- “There’s an illusion of insight that comes from looking at a person’s body.” “Body language speaks to us, but only in whispers.” “Reading people’s expressions can give you a little information, but you get so much more just by talking to them.” (Nicholas Epley, University of Chicago).
- “There is no Pinocchio’s nose – no one cue that will always accompany deception” (Leanne ten Brinke, U.C. Berkeley).
The Belief: High Trust in Body Language Anyway
Despite these conclusions, and the studies that support them, the cultural belief in the power of body language persists. The TSA, many law enforcement agencies, and scores of associated training firms are still committed to the idea. And if you try searching “body language” online, you’ll find that for every article that seriously looks at the meaningfulness and reliability of body language, there will be dozens purporting to teach you ‘the tricks’ for being believed, for spotting a liar, for acing that job interview, or for winning your mate. The reason for this belief, as Nicholas Epley explains in his book Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want, is that we project our own feelings onto others. As quoted in the NYT article, “When you’re lying or cheating, you know it and feel guilty, and it feels to you as if your emotions must be leaking out through your body language.” Because of this, he adds, “You have an illusion that your emotions are more transparent than they actually are, and so you assume others are more transparent than they actually are, too.” It may also be because body language has a powerful and demonstrated influence on how we see ourselves (e.g., see Amy Cuddy’s TED Talk).
The Lesson: The Body Isn’t a Language…But It Still Matters
Saying that particular gestures and facial expressions cannot be reliably reduced to definite meanings is not the same thing as saying that nonverbal communication, including bodily communication, is unimportant. It is important. As part of the overall package, our behavior still contributes mightily, rightly or wrongly, to how we judge others, and to how we ourselves come across.
So what do we do with the information of a strong disconnect between the science and the folk beliefs on the reliability of nonverbals? When our own nonverbals are being evaluated, it means that we should be aware that everything must might be overinterpreted. Aspects of tension, facial expression and gaze will be scrutinized by jurors just as surely as they are by TSA agents, so witnesses and attorneys need to be conscious of conveying the right message in both words and behavior. And when we’re evaluating the nonverbals of others, it means that we should be wary of overinterpreting. When talking to witnesses and attorneys, for example, I tell them to look at the jury in a polite and engaged manner, but not to waste a second trying to figure out what they’re thinking and whether they like and trust you or not. Beyond being unreliable, it is also a major distraction that can only serve to worsen your performance.
More broadly, perhaps, the lesson is that we shouldn’t over-determine communication itself. Messages – not just the nonverbal ones, but the verbal ones as well – resist all efforts to being boiled down to definite meanings and simple causes and effects. Communication is rich and complex with no secret tells or tricks.
______
Other Posts on Body Language:
- Don’t Be Too Sure About Face Reading Your Jury
- Adapt to Inconsistent Assessments of Witness Demeanor
- Go Ahead and Talk with Your Hands, But Know What You’re Saying
______
Image Credit: 123rf.com, Used under license