{"id":1288,"date":"2026-07-01T18:09:17","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T18:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flatplanplus.io\/bbc-sciencefocus\/?p=1288"},"modified":"2026-07-01T18:09:18","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T18:09:18","slug":"body-language-catch-liar-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flatplanplus.io\/bbc-sciencefocus\/2026\/07\/01\/body-language-catch-liar-questions\/","title":{"rendered":"Watching body language won’t catch a liar. Asking these questions will"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Psychology<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The simple questions that can expose any liar, according to psychologists<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

A nose-scratch here and an ear-tug there? The way we look for signs of lying is all wrong, say expert interrogators<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

By Michael Day<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Photo credit: Getty<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The best liars keep things simple. After all, when you begin practising the art of deception, you can easily end up in a tangled web, lost in your own lies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But simplifying your lies is easier said than done. One lie begets another. Entire backstories need to be prepared and remembered. New fabrications might be required at a moment\u2019s notice depending on where the line of questioning goes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No wonder, experts say, that in the process of lying \u200bour brains are under serious cognitive load. In other words, we\u2019re having to think hard and fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you’re telling a high-stakes lie, you’ve normally practised it \u2013 you’ve thought about your lie, you’re trying to remember what you’ve said in case you’re asked again, so you can repeat it,\u201d says Dr Sharon Leal, a psychologist at the University of Portsmouth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou’re monitoring your own behaviour and trying not to look nervous, trying to look the person straight in the eye. You’re monitoring the person you\u2019re lying to for signs that they’re on board \u2013 or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe know from MRI scans that the truth pops up first, and that has to be suppressed, so all of these things add to cognitive load.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Deceitful
Mental pressure is shown through verbal cues as much as physical cues, research shows. Photo credit: Getty<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You might expect this mental pressure to reveal itself with a series of physical signs. But you\u2019d be wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s high time to put people straight, says Leal, an expert on the signs of lying. \u201cWe now know that verbal detection of lying is far better than non-verbal, even though we hear so much about the non-verbal signs,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere’s nothing in it scientifically to show looking for non-verbal signs actually works. Forget all the extraneous movements, fidgeting, blinking, gaze aversion \u2013 it\u2019s not there. If anything, it’s the opposite; liars tend to be more still.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, psychologists have now established effective ways of detecting lies from what suspects actually say. It\u2019s all about the words; what a suspect says and how they say them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liar, liar, words on fire<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An interviewer can prompt tell-tale statements \u2013 and detect signs of dishonesty \u2013 through skilful use of the evidence in their possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strategic use of evidence (SUE)<\/a> approach relies on the questioner asking questions about an event without revealing the information they already have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truth tellers who have nothing to hide tend to speak freely and provide details, whereas lie tellers will deny they attended the event, or will be reluctant to give specifics and may deflect questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If interviewers do not have the necessary evidence, they can ask a suspect to provide it.  This, too, can be revealing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Verifiability Approach (VA) research<\/a> has found truth tellers are more likely to volunteer such evidence (for example, mentioning other people who were at the event) than lie tellers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another interrogation approach is the cognitive credibility assessment (CCA)<\/a> interview, in which interviewees are asked to tell their story several times over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CCA research has shown that truth tellers volunteer more extra information during these successive recalls than lie tellers who keep their stories simple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some evidence suggests that asking suspects to recount their timeline backwards can produce incriminating errors. People telling the truth \u200bcan rely on memory and handle this easily; liars struggle with the added strain and make mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the same vein, posing unanticipated questions that relate to the core events, for example, asking for specific details about the room layout, or the presence of an irrelevant but verifiable person, can produce telling errors or hesitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n\n\n\n

Read More:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n