Scientists set the record straight by clarifying common myths about 'body language'

You cannot “read” people by their posture, gaze, or a twitch of the lip. A new article synthesizes decades of research and finds that four popular body language claims do not hold up.

The authors argue that nonverbal cues are not a codebook you can decode for truth or emotion. They conclude that the average person’s lie detection hovers near a coin flip, about 54 percent, and that context rules.

Body language isn’t language

Nonverbal behavior does not work like words arranged in a sentence. There is no fixed lexicon that tells you what a scowl or crossed arms always mean.

Language also uses syntax while nonverbal behavior lacks such precise structure. Many cues are constant in the background, and people send and receive them at the same time.

The popular “bubble” of personal space is not stable. Preferred distance changes with the setting, relationship, mood, and culture, from office meetings to crowded concerts.

Researchers recommend thinking in terms of interpersonal distance, measured spacing that shifts with roles and goals. A friend can sit close at a party, yet feel too close in a staff meeting.

Faces vs. feelings

We often treat the face as a readout of inner emotion. Across societies, though, many faces function as social signals that guide what happens next.

In a Melanesian society, the so-called “fear” face was read as a threat display, not fear, in a field study. The same facial shape can communicate different things depending on who is present and what is at stake.

The match between felt emotion and facial movement is weaker than people expect. Some “sad” faces recruit help, and some “angry” faces push back on someone’s behavior, regardless of inner mood.

Body language and lie detection

A large meta-analysis found that nonverbal cues to deceit are weak and highly variable across situations. Tension and cognitive load can change posture or voice in both liars and truth tellers.

When people try to sort lies from truths without tools, average accuracy is about 54 percent. That level is barely better than guessing and varies by content and channel.

Government agencies tested behavior spotting at airports and reached the same sobering picture.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that reviews of multiple studies found no reliable evidence that nonverbal behavioral indicators can identify deception. 

Training people to spot microexpressions has not solved the problem. In a controlled trial overall lie detection accuracy after training was slightly below chance and no better than placebo training.

Rethinking four myths

First, the idea of nonverbal communication is useful, but it is not a hidden language with a decoder ring. Meaning depends on the whole pattern of cues and the situation.

Second, personal space does not travel with you as a fixed boundary. People adjust distance along with gaze, posture, and touch to manage comfort and control in real time.

Third, the “universal” face list is too simple. Diverse communities use the same face shapes for different social moves, which undercuts claims of one face per basic emotion everywhere.

Fourth, the belief that “the body never lies” keeps running into the same wall. Anxiety, effort, and social pressure can produce the same behaviors in the innocent and the guilty.

What to do instead

Treat nonverbal behavior as part of a system. Look at patterns, not single tells, and be explicit about the context, the setting and roles shaping what people do.

Use multiple channels. Words, timing, actions, and history carry more weight together than a glance or smile alone, and consistency across channels matters most.

Be cautious with high-stakes judgments. Commercial claims about decoding body language often function more like placebos, offering a sense of confidence rather than real insight.

Overconfidence about “reading” people can mislead interviews, classrooms, clinics, and courts.

A practical takeaway

If you rely on body language to spot lies or hidden emotions, you will often be wrong. Better results come from clear questions, corroboration, and attention to what people do over time.

If you teach or lead, design spaces and norms that help people interact well. Furniture, lighting, and noise are part of communication and shape behavior more than most realize.

If you build technology that reads faces, avoid claims it can see truth or emotion directly. Focus on specific, testable behaviors and publish validation openly so others can check the work.

The study is published in Perspectives on Psychological Science.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–