www.ijcrsee.com
229
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
Review article
Received: February 05, 2024.
Revised: April 03, 2024.
Accepted: April 09, 2024.
UDC:
177.3:159.925
159.925.8‑058.53
10.23947/2334‑8496‑2024‑12‑1‑229‑238
© 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*Corresponding author: zdjbjelajac@gmail.com
Željko Bjelajac1* , Božidar Banović2
Criminal Profiling as a Method of Detecting Lies in Nonverbal
Communication
1University Business Academy, Faculty of Law for Commerce and Judiciary, Republic of Serbia
e-mail: zdjbjelajac@gmail.com
2University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies, Republic of Serbia
e-mail: banovicb@fb.bg.ac.rs
Introduction
We live in a world full of contradictions. Very often, the destructive character of people prevails
over reason as their essential trait. This implication gives rise to numerous sociopathological phenomena.
Instead of well‑being and striving for harmony and peace, social anomalies have led to the expansion
of crimes against humanity, such as modern slavery (Bjelajac, 2014a), and have complicated the
ubiquitous violence (Bjelajac, 2013), which is increasingly manifesting in digital/virtual form (Bjelajac,
2012). In fact, what makes our time different and disturbing is the intensity of psychodynamics and the
escalation of violence in all its forms, in which anyone can become a victim due to the transformation of
ordinary individuals who directly or indirectly support criminal behavior. This directs us to the need for a
more comprehensive understanding of human nature, the emotional and psychological dimensions of
violence, and the clear tendency towards the brutalization of this phenomenon. Moreover, human nature
is determined by a series of natural, striking characteristics, which among other things relate to ways of
thinking, feeling, and acting, as a product of our inherited or innate traits and our individual experience
acquired in the environment in which we exist (Bjelajac, 2023). Unfortunately, this experience suggests to
us that the increasingly prevalent alienation of man from man (Bjelajac, 2014b) in the era of scientific and
technological development and globalization contributes to the rise and diversity of organized crime with
catastrophically high rates of violence and chaos in our living environment.
“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because
of the good people who do nothing,” said Albert Einstein. In the spirit of this wise thought, as part of
the response to crime, in the context of crime prevention policy (Bjelajac, 2015), we present criminal
profiling as a relatively new criminal investigative method/tool that law enforcement agencies use as a
Abstract: The exponential growth of crime, violence, and wrongdoing is linked to dysfunction in restraining aggressive
impulses, leading to neglect and disrespect of others’ feelings, rights, and needs. Two basic forms of communication,
verbal and nonverbal, serve individuals to interact and exchange ideas and attitudes with other people in everyday life
situations, including within the framework of criminal investigations and criminal justice. The purpose of this study was
to draw an analogy between verbal communication (oral speech, written speech) and nonverbal communication (body
language, gestures, and silence), with the tendency to explore different components of nonverbal communication
and place them in the context of criminal profiling as a method for detecting lies in nonverbal communication. The aim
of this study was to emphasize the importance of nonverbal communication as an equal part of the communication
process, and often a predominant one in this domain, which helps us demystify suspects, perpetrators, and criminal acts.
Keywords: nonverbal communication, verbal communication, criminal profiling, lie detection.
www.ijcrsee.com
230
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
systemic approach to investigate the background of a criminal act and create a psychological profile of the
criminal based on evidence from the crime scene. Profiling is often used in cases of particularly serious
crimes such as murders and rapes to find unknown perpetrators in the absence of evidence collected by
conventional means (conventional evidence) and/or when a criminal investigation reaches a deadlock. In
order to have an effective insight into the thought processes, personality characteristics, and motivations
of offenders, we must understand the origins of criminal behavior (developmental risk factors, biological
factors, learning, and situational factors) and the behavior trends of current and potential delinquents.
Profilers, while observing suspects, witnesses, and victims, monitor verbal and nonverbal
communication. It is known that verbal communication is more under the control of consciousness, so
criminals characterized by “indifference” with a lack and/or absence of empathy, along with pronounced
manipulative character with good intellectual abilities and potential for “acting,” can master “words” that
will exclude their guilt due to lack of evidence. Nevertheless, if we have a pronounced ability to perceive
microfacial expressions and “body language” in nonverbal communication, we have an instrument that
helps us to uncover and better understand lies, and thereby demystify the criminal and the crime.
Methodology
In the process of conducting descriptive research, we formulated research questions in an appropriate
and concise manner to explore the perspective of detecting lies in nonverbal communication. We utilized
qualitative research methods to conduct a deeper analysis and provide more detailed explanations,
offering a comprehensive and broader picture of nonverbal communication in this domain, and addressing
why this form of communication is important and unjustly neglected. Through the method of comparative
analysis, we uncovered common and different characteristics of verbal and nonverbal communication
as two fundamental and key forms of human interaction. We interpreted that there are pronounced
capacities of nonverbal communication manifested through the presence of characteristic behavioral
signals accompanying lying or manipulative behavior.
The analogy between verbal and non-verbal communication
Verbal and nonverbal communication are two fundamental ways of human interaction that play
a primary role in expressing and conveying messages, emotions, ideas, information, and intentions
among different individuals. A proper understanding of the differences between these two basic forms of
communication is crucial for effective relationships among people.
Figure 1. Tabular Difference Between Verbal and Non-verbal communication
Aspect Verbal Communication Non-Verbal Communication
Medium Spoken or written words Body language, facial ex‑
pressions, gestures, etc.
Channel Auditory and visual Primarily visual
Language Barriers Language proficiency can
affect understanding More universal, transcend‑
ing language barriers.
Speed of Delivery Faster in conveying infor‑
mation Slower, allowing for more
subtle nuances
Conscious Control Often requires conscious
effort and articulation Often unconscious and
spontaneous.
Ambiguity Can be more precise and
explicit Can be ambiguous and
open to interpretation.
www.ijcrsee.com
231
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
Aspect Verbal Communication Non-Verbal Communication
Emotional Expression Tone of voice conveys
emotions
Facial expressions and
body language convey
emotions.
Memory Retention Easier to remember and
recall
Non‑verbal cues can
be challenging to recall
accurately.
Cultural Differences Language may have
cultural nuances
Non‑verbal cues can
vary significantly across
cultures.
Scope Covers a broad range of
topics
More effective for
expressing feelings and
attitudes.
Source: Difference Between Verbal and Non‑Verbal Communication, (2024)
According to Albert Mehrabian, “Verbal communication refers to the use of words in conveying
the desired message. The main components of verbal communication are sound, words, speech, and
language. Three elements differently explain our liking for the person conveying the message about
their feelings: words account for 7%, tone of voice for 38%, and facial expression for 55% liking. It
becomes more likely for the receiver to believe the prevailing form of communication, which, according
to Mehrabian’s findings, is the nonverbal influence of tone + facial expression (38% + 55%), rather than
the literal meaning of words (7%). This is known as the “7%‑38%‑55% rule” (Mehrabian, 1971). Verbal
communication can be direct or indirect, formal and informal, and the variation can also be reflected in the
pitch of the tone, depending on how a particular message is perceived.
When considering nonverbal communication, it is advisable to refer to a quote from the famous
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “The most understandable in language is not the word itself, but the
tone, strength, modulations, tempo with which a series of words is spoken ‑ in short; the music behind
the words, the person behind that passion: thus, everything that cannot be written.” According to David
Matsumoto, one of the recognized experts in the field of nonverbal communication, it is “the process of
sending and receiving messages without the use of words, either spoken or written.” Therefore, this form
of communication can convey emotions stronger than words and includes eye contact, facial expressions,
hand gestures, tone of voice, and body language.
Body language, tone of voice, and physical appearance greatly influence our communication on
our behalf. Most people are not aware that besides verbal language, our brains subconsciously process
microexpressions, general “vibes,” and appearance to assess almost everyone we come into contact with.
If someone were to pretend to punch you while walking down the street without saying a word, how would
you react? You would probably instinctively react by running, flinching, or retaliating with a punch. Reacting
to a fake punch is a subconscious reaction that is easy to recognize, but what if someone crosses their
arms or establishes awkward eye contact while talking to you? Are you aware of how your body naturally
reacts? By understanding nonverbal cues (vibes), you can be more aware of what your subconscious
picks up and more aware of how you present yourself to others (Conscious Vibe, 2021). Microexpressions
are unconscious, extremely fast, sometimes full expressions of emotions. Sometimes they are partial
and very subtle expressions of emotions. But since they are extremely fast and unconscious, when they
appear, they often last less than half a second ‑ sometimes even a tenth of a second or even a fifteenth
of a second. Most people don’t see them. Some people see them but don’t know what they see. They
see something that has changed on the face, but they don’t know exactly what has changed. It is very
short‑lived, but if you freeze‑frame on video, you will see that many times there is a large facial expression
that clearly speaks to the person’s mental state (Hamilton, 2016). Facial expressions of emotion are
universal in the sense that everyone around the world, regardless of race, culture, nationality, gender,
etc., regardless of the demographic variable, we all show the same facial muscle expressions on our
faces when we have the same emotions (Hamilton, 2016), anger, sadness, rage, joy. This suggests the
www.ijcrsee.com
232
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
importance of paying attention to nonverbal communication in everything, from intercultural exchanges to
criminal investigations, because understanding facial expressions/changes or body language can signal
a variety of different emotions, which guide us to what is being sought.
The Mode of Recognizing Lies in Non-Verbal Communication
In our often cruel and harsh world, gripped by a global crisis of morality, lying has become a “normal”
trait in the existence of the modern individual. Hypocrisy and deceit cloak selfish aims of individuals,
aiming to conceal crimes, deny acts such as rape, robbery, theft, and perpetrate other serious offenses in
the most insidious manner. Individuals who lie about transgressions typically appear more disturbed than
those speaking the truth, often exhibiting more inhibition in their gestures signaling deceit.
Psychologist Robert Feldman from the University of Massachusetts has been studying lying for
over a decade, and his research has led to astonishing conclusions. Most shockingly, 60% of people lie
during a typical 10‑minute conversation and average two to three lies during that short time frame. In
Feldman’s studies, most people do not even realize all the lies they have told until after the conversation
when it is played back to them on video (Bradberry, 2016). Everyone has been caught in a lie at some point
in their life, and it seems this event remains in the memory of most people through stories about those
experiences. Vrij, Edward, Roberts, and Bull (Vrij, Edward, Roberts, and Bull, 2000) suggest that a liar can
be caught in three different ways. One strategy is observing the behavior of the individual (i.e., whether
they make restless movements or avert their gaze). Another strategy is to analyze what they say (i.e.,
whether they stutter, have hesitations in their voice, or take long pauses in speech). Lastly, a liar can be
caught by measuring physiological correlates, which can be explicitly measured (i.e., pulse, GSR). Verbal
cues are linguistic traces of deceit expressed in an individual’s statement, such as stuttering, variations
in pitch, etc. Nonverbal cues are traces of deceit expressed through facial expressions, eye movements,
and body language (Wang, Chen and Atabakhsh, 2004; Hicks and Ulvestad, 2011). Therefore, learning to
read microexpressions and nonverbal behavior in general can be very valuable for anyone whose job is to
understand the true feelings, thoughts, motivations, personalities, or intentions of others. These would be
people in the criminal justice system, police, national security, intelligence services ‑ people whose job is
to try to uncover whether a person is withholding knowledge or has some information that would be useful
for solving crimes or obtaining other data (Hamilton, 2016). “Interviewers must be able to properly use
their own knowledge and skills about nonverbal communication. Facial expressions can reveal attitudes of
sincerity, shock, surprise, humor, sadness, or concern. Meaningful communication also depends on tone
of voice, inflection in delivery, emphasis on words, use of guttural sounds, body space, body movements
and gestures, proper timing, control of vulgarity and slang, appropriate physical appearance, and study
of clothing usage. When interviewees lie, skilled interviewers can recognize countless biological and
physiological processes occurring in their minds and bodies. Indicators of lying include sweating; flushing
or paling of the skin; increase or decrease in pulse, which is visible from the appearance of visible
veins on the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes;
muscle twitching; lip licking; thick and blurred speech; stuttering; rapid eye movements; body stiffness;
‘playing’ with hands; clenched fists; and cold, clammy palms (Kuhlman, 1980).” Signals for detecting lies
in nonverbal communication are most noticeable on the face in the form of ticks. Individuals often display
“irregular” eye contact, dust off their clothing, or are preoccupied with “fiddling” with objects. However,
not all individuals express the same meaning of nonverbal communication in similar circumstances. For
example, blushing on someone’s face after a question does not necessarily mean that person is hiding
the truth.
In many encounters between police and citizens, the primary focus is always on the verbal statements
of suspects/citizens, rather than on how and what their body conveys while “telling a story.” This study
advocates for an integrated approach in which police officers understand that they also communicate
nonverbally with suspects and reveals that nonverbal communication, known as body language, proxemics,
and kinesics behavior, often tends to make up a much larger part of police communication models than
verbal communication, which should help police officers establish authority and dominance and provide
a safe environment (Otu, 2023). Recognizing lies in nonverbal communication is not an imposed tool in
police investigations, but it is an effective means that necessarily imposes itself as a powerful method
serving criminal justice.
www.ijcrsee.com
233
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
“Almost every person who lies feels nervous, although it may be more or less pronounced, depending
on “professional experience.” If you want to know if someone is lying to you, pay particular attention to their
state and try to insist on discussing the suspicious topic as much as possible. Some signs of nervousness
are nail‑biting, restlessness, sweating, rubbing hands from legs, tapping feet, and playing with items in
their pockets. What are the differences between men and women in nonverbal communication? Certain
stereotypes and general characteristics attributed to men are aggression, dominance, loudness, and
loud speech, while women are believed to be mainly emotional, tender, and sensitive to others, but also
passive and prone to gossip. Everyday perceptions of non‑verbal communication and the difference
between men and women reflect these common beliefs about gender differences (Paunović and Orlandić,
2013).” “You may have noticed that when you ask someone a question, their eyes constantly move in a
different direction. Research has shown a connection between the movements of the person’s eyes and
what they are thinking about at that moment. The research results further explain six different directions
in which a person can look ‑ up right, up left, middle right, middle left, down right, and down left. Each
of these directions reflects what the person is currently thinking about. For example, if a person you are
talking to looks up and to the left while telling you something, they are probably constructing a story they
intend to tell, which may also mean they are lying to you (Paunović and Orlandić, 2013).” The question
remains open whether the results of such research are sufficiently reliable. Critics point to a lack of
empirical evidence and suggest that this is inductive reasoning, and every inductive conclusion carries
within it elements of “problematic.”
However, there are several nonverbal signals that when particularly appearing together, may
suggest that someone is lying. These signs include:
• Eye area ‑ A wandering gaze, left or right, indicates discomfort when a person is trying to find
a way out of a dangerous and unpleasant situation; Excessive blinking may indicate stress;
Avoiding eye contact may indicate lack of confidence or distancing from the interlocutor; Rolling
eyes is an act of negative nonverbal communication, signaling disrespect, astonishment, and
disapproval of the interlocutor’s words; When a person closes their eyes for a few seconds,
it can be interpreted as lying as a defense mechanism and at the same time implies that they
do not want to be in the current situation; Rubbing the eyes and touching the eyelids during
questioning is a gesture seeking some sort of “time‑out” to devise a strategy. Also, this gesture
represents the brain’s attempt to block lies, deceit, or suspicion or to avoid looking the person
they are lying to in the face; Raised eyebrows mostly represent surprise, while lowered ones
indicate emotions of dominance, anger, disagreement, or sadness. Increased pupils, which in
men can enlarge up to three times, are a sign of great excitement.
• Mouth covering ‑ Hand or fingers or even a clenched fist over the mouth may signal that a
person is hesitant to speak. The brain at a subconscious level instructs to suppress the false
words being spoken. Many individuals mask this gesture with a fake cough.
• Touching and rubbing the nose ‑ The person feels uncomfortable about lying, and this
gesture is part of the “ritual.” This gesture is, in fact, a sophisticated, concealed version of
mouth covering gesture.
• Insincere smile ‑ Only the mouth stretches. There are no signs of wrinkles around the eyes or
visible. A twisted smile shows sarcasm. In females, the so‑called tight‑lipped smile is often a
gesture of rejection, secretive thinking, or attitude.
• “Lying through one’s teeth” is a term that denotes rubbing the eyes, with clenched teeth, and
a fake smile accompanied by loud and unrestrained laughter/chuckling.
• Ear grabbing ‑ Involves fiddling, scratching, and pulling the earlobe, symbolizing something
one does not want to hear, the listener’s attempt to “hear no evil.”
• “Pinocchio effect” ‑ A person lying often scratches their nose or the area behind the ear while
covering their mouth. Lying also causes a tingling sensation on the neck due to increased
blood pressure, and individuals tend to adjust collars, ties, and touch jewelry.
• Licking and pressing lips ‑ Lying causes dryness in the mouth, which is a characteristic sign
of insecurity and nervousness.
• Nervous cough ‑ May indicate tremor but also increasing nervousness due to lying.
• Face touching ‑ When people lie, a chemical reaction can lead to facial itching, reflected in
scratching or touching the face.
www.ijcrsee.com
234
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
Figure 2. Body Language – Hand to Face Gestures
Source: www.indiabix.com/body‑language/hand‑to‑face‑gestures, n.d.
• Blushing - Some individuals may blush after lying, which is certainly a sign that the person
feels uncomfortable in the situation they are in. This is an involuntary reflex caused by the
sympathetic nervous system and arises due to the secretion of adrenaline.
• Excessive sweating - People who lie sweat more than in other situations, which is usually
visible on the forehead, cheeks, or the back of the neck.
• Irregular breathing - It is a sure sign of discomfort, which can be recognized by actively
observing the other person.
• Foot tapping - Nervously tapping the feet is one of the most recognizable signs of tension.
The reason is usually lying and the desire to leave the exposure situation as soon as possible.
• Fidgeting with various tics - Interlocutors recognize these as negative acts of nonverbal
communication. Twirling hair, touching jewelry, looking at the watch, squirming are gestures
that indicate a loss of control over oneself and insecurity.
• Palms - People who lie often hide their palms.
• Neck rubbing - Indicates stress relief and reveals present anxiety.
• Chin movements - Can be a signal that the listener is making a decision. When the index
finger is directed up the cheek, and the thumb supports the chin, the listener has negative or
critical thoughts about the speaker.
• Nail biting ‑ Is extremely poor nonverbal communication and another habit that shows other
people that you are nervous.
• Shrugging shoulders - A universal gesture used to indicate that a person has no knowledge or
does not understand what you are talking about. Usually accompanied by hunched shoulders,
raised eyebrows, and exposed palms.
There are also other signals in nonverbal communication that can indicate deception. For example,
through body posture, one can notice a person’s level of confidence and interpret insecurity. Crossed legs
or arms indicate a defensive stance, withdrawal, discomfort, disinterest, and unwillingness to engage with
the other person. Finger tapping and foot trembling are characteristic body language signs that usually
indicate stress, agitation, or boredom. Crossed ankles convey a sense of discomfort and a stance as if
being on the “defendant’s bench.” “Fidgeting with clothes,” holding objects, adjusting hair or makeup,
smoking, and holding cigarettes may indicate that the person feels uneasy or uncomfortable. Therefore,
www.ijcrsee.com
235
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
as observed, there are many different gestures in nonverbal communication that can suggest that a
person is insincere and lying.
It seems that the detection of lies in nonverbal communication was most notably promoted by the
American crime series “Lie to Me,” a dramatic series about a psychologist who is a “human lie detector,”
or an expert in reading facial and body language that reveals deceit. He collaborates with a female
clinical psychologist and opens an agency that offers private investigation and crime‑solving services.
Tim Roth plays Cal Lightman, the world’s leading deception expert who studies facial expressions and
involuntary body language to uncover not only if someone is lying but also why. Based on the scientific
discoveries of Dr. Paul Ekman, the series follows Lightman and his team of deception experts as they
assist law enforcement agencies and government agencies in uncovering the truth behind lies (Lie to
Me, 2009). Cal focuses on the prisoner’s changes in facial expression in a fraction of a second, which
unconsciously reveal the location where the bomb was placed. Facing a room full of undercover police
officers, Cal replays the video of this interrogation on a polygraph, pausing to illustrate ‑ using extreme
close‑ups ‑ small twitches at the corners of the eyes and mouth that gave him the information he wanted.
In another case, Cal investigates the recent murder of a teacher in a high school. The main suspect is a
16‑year‑old, one of her students. During the interrogation, Cal notices “irregular eye contact patterns,” so
the boy’s failure to avoid eye contact indicates that he is lying about never being in or near the teacher’s
house. Interestingly, when asked about the teacher’s death, he furrows his brows, meaning he is sad and
has nothing to do with the murder. Kal then questions the boy’s schoolmates, who point out that he was
withdrawn and unadjusted to society, with one girl noticeably showing nervousness and unusual breathing
patterns. In this complex plot, Cal found the real culprit who wanted to skillfully “frame” the boy for the
crime and uncovered the background of the boy’s behavior related to a fantasy relationship and obsessive
desire for the teacher, which included stalking. When he saw her dead, he panicked and ran away (Lie to
Me – Season 1, Episode 1.).
Discussion
In the past forty years, several studies have been conducted that recorded and analyzed people’s
behaviors during lying with the aim of determining whether there are specific signs that would indicate
deception. Such signs are called objective signs of lying, and they differ from subjective signs of lying
in that subjective signs are those that people believe appear during lying, i.e., those signs of lying that
represent the beliefs of the majority of people. The results of research conducted so far do not fully
agree on which forms of behavior occur in liars (Banjac, 2018). Vrij, Edward, and Bull, in their research,
observed significant individual differences in the behavior of individuals who manifest lies and deception
as a denial of truth, suggesting that there is no uniform behavior for lying that would establish absolute
standards in a given context (Vrij, Edward, and Bull, 2001).
Although lie detection has a long historical background primarily within psychology, the origins of
criminal behavior, and criminal investigations, there are still very conflicting studies regarding lie detection
in nonverbal communication. Some studies indicate that people are limited in recognizing lies, but much
more accurate in recognizing truth, this phenomenon is called the “truth effect” (Strömwall, Granhag, and
Jonsson, 2003). Certain authors believe that Paul Ekman’s popular hypothesis on micro‑expressions of
the face as indicators of lying, advertised in many popular courses, lacks scientific support (Porter, S., and
ten Brinke, 2008). For example, a recent study, which examined the effect of micro‑expression training
on lie detection and involved the presentation of real video footage of high‑stakes liars, found that trained
participants achieved lower chances of detecting lies, similar to untrained or falsely trained participants
(Jordan et al., 2019). In some studies, research on lie detection has shown that observers relying solely
on signs correctly classify an average of 54% truths or lies (Vrij, Meissner and Kassin, 2015). Despite the
expressed reservation regarding the adequate recognition of lies in nonverbal communication, there is
a significant number of credible researchers and criminal investigators who argue convincingly that it is
possible to detect liars, as opposed to those telling the truth, based on the nonverbal signals sent by the
sender.
By the mid‑1960s, Ekman initiated a series of cross‑cultural studies focusing on facial expressions,
emotions, and gestures. In addition to basic research on emotions and their expression, he also dealt
with deception. In 1991, Ekman conducted a study focusing on the ability to identify lies by individuals of
www.ijcrsee.com
236
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
different professions. This mainly concerned professions where lies are more common. The participants
were members of secret services, psychiatrists, judges, police officers, polygraph staff, and a group of
students. Individuals were asked to describe changes in behavior, facial expressions, and intonation of the
voice of a woman testifying, and based on these clues, come to a conclusion whether her statement was
true or false. The most successful group turned out to be the group of secret service agents (Vicianova,
2015; Ekman, O’Sullivan, and Frank, 1999). Indeed, there is tangible evidence that certain categories
of professionals such as members of secret services, clinical psychologists, and criminal investigators
experienced in interrogating suspects are indeed more successful in lie detection.
Studies on what people believe about lying and deception identify a range of nonverbal signs
associated with lying (Vrij, 2000; Vrij, 2008; Global Deception Research Team, 2006) ‑ avoiding eye contact,
fidgeting, restless movements of the feet and legs, frequent changes in body posture. Such beliefs are
not limited to laypeople, but are also held by legal and psychological experts (Bogaard, Meijer, Vrij, and
Merckelbach, 2016; Dickens and Curtis, 2019). Based on such everyday ideas, many organizations offer
courses and programs promising the ability to detect lies (Brennen and Magnussen, 2020), scientifically
proven methods for interpreting body language, detecting micro‑expressions mainly manifested when a
person tries to suppress their emotions, leading to rapid display of micro‑expressions. These programs
offer training not only for detecting lies in criminal investigations but also teach participants to verify the
credibility of interlocutors in a business environment during meetings, interviews, or when concluding
business contracts. This suggests that there is definitely a future for this line of research.
Conclusion
“There are very few evil people, yet so much evil happens in the world, most of that evil falls on the
shoulders of many other people, who are nothing but good people,” said Johann Nestroy. Evil people are
destructive and self‑destructive beings because they emit aggressiveness, alienation, selfishness, lack
of empathy... Ultimately, the inability to control aggressive impulses leads to neglecting and disrespecting
the feelings, rights, and needs of others, which leads individuals into criminal activities and acts of crime.
Therefore, it is up to the “rest” of good people to find mechanisms to restrain the malignant nature of
human behavior, separating good from evil and lies from truth. All the more so, as the number of security
challenges, risks, and threats is exponentially increasing. A large part of these threats can be prevented
and/or brought to a level tolerable for society through proactive action.
In that direction, as a segment of crime suppression policy, adequately proactive action is crucial,
as a set of measures and procedures for eliminating, reducing, and timely recognizing future problems.
By emphasizing nonverbal communication, compared to known patterns of verbal communication, in the
context of criminal profiling as a method for detecting lies in criminal and “preventive” investigations, we
wanted to highlight the potential of this “tool” that can contribute to elucidating challenging and complicated
crimes through the analysis of specific psychological aspects.
Research and detection of lies have a significant place in the field of forensic psychology. We
witness everyday lies in interpersonal communications that can cause human problems and tragedies in
addition to personal discomfort. However, lying in criminal investigations and in court seems to have been
the leading concern for scientific research interest in lie detection. It is known that testimonies of suspects,
witnesses, and victims are crucial for the verdict’s decision‑making and sustainability, which depends on
the perceived credibility of the given statements, especially in cases where there is a lack of undisputed
facts and evidence. Therefore, it is crucial to identify liars, not only based on verbal communication but
also through the analysis of unconscious nonverbal signals they emit.
Current studies on the accuracy of deception detection using verbal and nonverbal cues focus
on two lines of research. The first “line” gives importance to verbal communication over nonverbal
communication, as such ideas are not supported by appropriate empirical research, while the second
“line” does not dispute the capacities of verbal communication but emphasizes the importance of the
existence of characteristic behavioral signals accompanying lying or manipulative behavior, which are
neglected in criminal investigations and court proceedings. For criminal investigators and profilers, it is
certainly important to follow strategies and principles that involve taking into account both verbal and
nonverbal communication cues, which are unjustly neglected.
www.ijcrsee.com
237
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Ž.B and B.B,; methodology, Ž.B.; resources, Ž.B. and B.B., validation, B.B.,
writing—original draft preparation, Ž.B.; writing—review and editing, Ž.B and B.B. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
References
Banjac, U. L. (2018). Neverbalna komunikacija i laganje: Analiza serije: Laži mi (Doctoral dissertation, University of Zagreb.
Department of Croatian Studies).
Bjelajac, Ž. (2014a). Trgovina ljudima - Zločin protiv čovečnosti [Human trafcking - Crime against humanity]. Novi Sad: Pravni
fakultet za privredu i pravosuđe.
Bjelajac, Ž. (2014). Alijenacija čoveka u eri naučnotehnološkog razvoja i globalizacije kao uzrok porasta i raznolikosti
organizovanog kriminala [The alienation of man in the era scientic-technological development and globalization as a
cause of growth and diversity of organized crime], Kultura polisa, 11(25), 385‑396. https://kpolisa.com/index.php/kp/
article/view/1215
Bjelajac, Ž. (2015). Politika suzbijanja kriminaliteta [Crime suppression policy]. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet za privredu i pravosuđe
u Novom Sadu.
Bjelajac, Ž. (2023). Poreklo kriminalnog ponašanja [The origin of criminal behavior.]. Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet za privredu i
pravosuđe.
Bjelajac, Ž., & Matijašević, J. (2013). Nasilje kao oblik socio-patološkog ponašanja [Violence as a form of socio-pathological
behavior]. Kultura polisa,10(22), 409‑425. https://kpolisa.com/index.php/kp/article/view/1278
Bjelajac, Ž., Matijašević, J., & Dimitrijević, D. (2012). Značaj uspostavljanja međunarodnih standarda u suzbijanju
visokotehnološkog kriminala [The importance of establishing international standards in combating high-tech crime].
Međunarodna politika, 63(1146), 66–84.
Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Strong, but wrong: Lay people’s and police ofcers’ beliefs about
verbal and nonverbal cues to deception. PloS one, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156615
Bradberry, T. (2016). 60% Of Your Colleagues Are Lying To You. https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/01/21/
sixty‑percent‑of‑your‑colleagues‑are‑lying‑to‑you/?sh=587ef9913956
Brennen, T., & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley. Frontiers in psychology, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410
Conscious Vibe (2021). Here’s How To Read Unspoken Body Language & Micro-Expressions (Vibes). https://theconsciousvibe.
com/heres‑how‑to‑read‑unspoken‑vibes‑body‑language/
Dickens, C. R., & Curtis, D. A. (2019). Lies within the law: Therapist’beliefs and attitudes about deception. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Research and Practice, 19(5), 359‑375. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2019.1666604
Difference Between Verbal and Non‑verbal Communication (2024). https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/verbal‑and‑non‑verbal‑
communication/
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological science, 10(3), 263‑266. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467‑9280.00147
Global Deception Research Team (2006). A World of Lies. Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60‑74. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022022105282295
Hamilton, A. (2016). Speaking of Psychology: Nonverbal communication speaks volumes, with David Matsumoto, PhD. https://
www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking‑of‑psychology/nonverbal‑communication#:~:text=David%20Matsumoto
Hicks, C., & Ulvestad, N. (2011). Deception detection accuracy using verbal or nonverbal cues. The Journal of Undergraduate
Research, 9(1), 9. 63‑68. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/jur/vol9/iss1/9
Jordan, S., Brimbal, L., Wallace, D. B., Kassin, S. M., Hartwig, M., & Street, C. N. (2019). A test of the micro-expressions
training tool: Does it improve lie detection?. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Proling, 16(3), 222‑235.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1532
Kuhlman, M. (1980). Nonverbal Communications in Interrogations. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49(11), 6‑9. https://www.
ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/Digitization/73775NCJRS.pdf
Lie to Me (2009). https://www.disneyplus.com/en‑rs/series/lie‑to‑me/6sKqw1EWcTP5
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 0‑534‑00910‑7.
Otu, N. (2015). Decoding nonverbal communication in law enforcement. Salus Journal, 3(2), 1‑16. https://journals.csu.domains/
www.ijcrsee.com
238
Bjelajac, Ž., & Banović, B. (2024). Criminal proling as a method of detecting lies in nonverbal communication, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 229-238.
index.php/salusjournal/article/view/42
Paunović, I., & Orlandić, J. (2013). Laž i neverbalna komunikacija [Lies and non-verbal communication]. https://psihoterapijaoli.
com/2013/11/28/laz‑i‑neverbalna‑komunikacija/
Porter, S., & Ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsied emotions in universal facial
expressions. Psychological science, 19(5), 508‑514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02116.x
Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2003). Deception among pairs:“Let’s say we had lunch and hope they will swallow
it!” Deception among pairs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), 109‑124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000116238
Vicianova, M. (2015). Historical techniques of lie detection. Europe’s journal of psychology, 11(3), 522–534. https://doi.
org/10.5964/ejop.v11i3.919
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. Wiley.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit, 2nd Edn. Chichester: Wiley.
Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). People’s insight into their own behaviour and speech content while lying. British Journal
of Psychology, 92(2), 373‑389. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162248
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of
Nonverbal behavior, 24, 239‑263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006610329284
Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2015). Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: No
proof to the contrary in Levine et al.(2014). Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(9), 901‑909. https://doi.org/10.1080/106831
6X.2015.1054389
Wang, G., Chen, H., & Atabakhsh, H. (2004). Automatically detecting deceptive criminal identities. Communications of the
ACM, 47(3), 70‑76. https://doi.org/10.1145/971617.971618
