Deception Detection: Why Body Language is a Scam and Linguistics is the Answer

In the world of deception detection, the focus has traditionally been on acts of commission—blatant lies or fabrications. However, groundbreaking research around the globe reveals that most deceptive acts occur through acts of omission, where crucial details are intentionally left out. Acts of omissions are easier to perform and they are less risky for the deceiver because they provide plausible deniability. This is especially important in business context, where reputation can make or break a company.

So it’s time to shift our focus and debunk the myths surrounding nonverbal communication in deception detection.

The Body Language Scam

Despite the multi-billion-dollar industry that promotes body language as a key to detecting lies, the truth is far less glamorous. Experts like Paul Ekman, often cited for his work on facial expressions, have been misinterpreted by popular media. Decades of global research, including studies by Aldert Vrij and Bella DePaulo, have shown that there are no reliable nonverbal cues for detecting deception. The belief that one can "read" a liar through body language is nothing more than a lucrative scam.

The Science of Linguistic Analysis

The only scientifically supported method for accurately detecting deception is through linguistic analysis. Contrary to the widespread belief that humans have full control over their words, forensic linguistics reveals that our language betrays us in ways that aware conscious awareness. Prominent researchers like Shuy and Pennebaker have demonstrated that language use, rather than body language, holds the key to uncovering deception.

The Elusiveness of Acts of Omission

Acts of omission—where critical details are intentionally left out—are subtle and challenging to detect. This elusiveness is why most research, as well as the majority of popular training, business workshops and books, focus on acts of commission. The supposedly overt nature of lies makes them more appealing to study and teach, but this leaves a significant gap in understanding and identifying deceptions in general and acts of omissions in particular. Acts of omission require a much more nuanced and sophisticated analytical approach, an approach that eliminates the stereotypical believes about deception detection which have been propagated by the ever growing coaching industry.

Detecting Acts of Omission

Identifying acts of omission through forensic linguistics involves several techniques:

Incomplete Narratives: Analyses by experts like Roger Shuy show that stories lacking expected details or logical progression can indicate omission.

Evasive Responses: Noting when a person avoids answering specific questions directly or shifts topics, as highlighted in Pennebaker's research on language and social psychology.

Inconsistencies: Comparing different accounts of the same event to spot discrepancies, a method rigorously applied in studies by Aldert Vrij.

Verb Tenses and Pronouns: Changes in verb tenses or the use of distancing language, as explored by Pennebaker, can signal discomfort or evasion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while nonverbal cues have been popularized as tools for detecting deception, they lack scientific reliability. Acts of omission, though more subtle, are where most deceptive behavior resides. By focusing on linguistic analysis, forensic linguists can uncover these omissions and reveal the truth.

Call to Action

Are you skeptical about the veracity of a speaker or writer? Send me your examples, and let’s uncover the truth together. And no worries, I have nothing to sell.