Expressive liars, credible impressions: Facial expressions across three deception paradigms
This study of 176 participants across three deception paradigms reveals that while facial expressiveness offers limited diagnostic value for detecting lies, it consistently influences perceived credibility, often making more expressive senders appear more truthful regardless of actual veracity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
We often believe that the truth is written on our faces. When someone lies, we expect to see a flicker of fear, a suppressed smile, or a momentary blankness that betrays their deception. This intuition is so strong that it shapes how we judge people in courtrooms, job interviews, and everyday conversations. However, decades of psychological research suggest that the human face is a poor lie detector. While we feel certain that we can spot a liar by their expression, scientific studies consistently show that our ability to distinguish a lie from the truth is barely better than guessing. The problem lies in a fundamental confusion: we often mistake how believable a person seems for how accurate their story is. A person can look entirely sincere while telling a complete fabrication, just as they can look nervous while speaking the absolute truth. The question remains, then, whether there are specific patterns in our facial movements that actually signal deception, or if our faces simply reflect our personality and the situation we are in, regardless of whether we are lying.
To investigate this, researchers at the University of Sydney set out to separate the act of lying from the act of appearing convincing. They recruited 176 university students and asked them to perform three very different types of tasks, all while being video-recorded. In the first scenario, the students played a competitive trivia game where they could win a gift voucher. They were instructed to lie about their choices in a specific round to try and win more money. In the second scenario, they told personal stories about their lives, some true and some completely made up, covering both happy and sad experiences. In the third, they described images they were shown, sometimes describing the picture accurately and other times inventing a description that was the opposite of what they saw. Afterward, a separate group of fourteen observers watched these videos and rated whether they thought each person was telling the truth. The researchers then used automated software to analyze every frame of the videos, measuring how often each person smiled, frowned, or showed other basic emotions, how long those expressions lasted, and whether the expression matched the story they were telling.
The results challenged the common idea that a "poker face" is the key to successful lying. The researchers found that the amount of emotion a person showed on their face did not reliably predict whether their lie would be caught. In some cases, people who were more expressive were actually harder to detect as liars, particularly when they were telling personal stories or describing negative images. This suggests that a lack of emotion is not a universal sign of deception, nor is showing emotion a sign of lying. Instead, the study revealed a clearer pattern regarding how believable a person appeared. People who displayed more facial expressions, regardless of whether they were lying or telling the truth, were generally rated as more credible. When a person showed a range of emotions that fit their story, or even when they showed a mix of emotions that didn't quite match, they were often perceived as more trustworthy.
This distinction is crucial. The study showed that facial expressions are much better at predicting how sincere a person seems than at revealing whether they are actually lying. For instance, in the personal story tasks, participants who showed more frequent and longer emotional expressions were judged as more truthful, even when they were lying. Similarly, showing an emotion that matched the content of the story, such as looking sad while describing a sad event, made a person appear more genuine. Interestingly, even showing an emotion that didn't match the story sometimes helped a person appear more believable, suggesting that observers value emotional variety and engagement over strict consistency. The researchers concluded that while facial behavior offers very little help in spotting a liar, it plays a significant role in shaping our trust. We tend to believe people who look engaged and expressive, even if their story is false. This means that in situations where we need to judge the truth, relying on a person's facial expressions is likely to lead us astray, as a convincing performance is not the same thing as a truthful one.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.