Lying is part of human nature, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept it blindly. We’re all told little lies every day, but by understanding the psychology of deception, we can shift the dynamic and make it harder for lies to take root.
Do you ever get that feeling? That little itch in your brain that says, “Something’s not adding up here.” You’re not just being paranoid. On any given day, you’re likely to be lied to 10 times. The average person tells about two lies per day.
Now, before you lose all faith in humanity, know this: most of these are harmless “little white lies” designed to keep social situations running smoothly (“That haircut looks great!”). It’s the other lesser percentage, the “big lies”, that can cause real damage. There is no “Pinocchio effect.” There’s no single, universal sign of deception. Forget the myths about shifty eyes or fidgeting hands; in fact, liars sometimes overcompensate with more eye contact to seem authentic.
So, what do smart people do? They stop trying to be mind-readers and start acting as “truth seekers.” They understand what deception expert Pamela Meyer says: “Lying is a cooperative act… its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe it.” Smart people simply choose not to cooperate. The phrases that follow aren’t “gotcha” questions. They’re designed to gently increase the mental effort, the “cognitive load” of lying, creating an environment where the truth has more room to breathe.
“Okay, so walk me through that again, but start from the end.”
This is the classic cognitive load technique, and it’s a powerful one. The brain harbors what can be called the real event memories, and they are stored in chronological order. When you recall a true story, you’re essentially playing back a recording. Recalling it backward is a bit tricky, but you can do it because you’re accessing a real, detailed memory file.
A lie, however, isn’t a memory. It’s a construction. The liar has constructed a script from A to B to C. It is exponentially more difficult to ask him/her to report it in the reverse order, C to B to A. They have to maintain the logical consistency of a story that was never “filmed” in the first place, all while suppressing the truth.
This is a cornerstone of cognitive lie detection approaches and they were developed by researchers like Aldert Vrij. Pamela Meyer explains that it “raises the cognitive load significantly,” causing liars to leak both verbal and non-verbal cues.
“That’s interesting. What were you thinking right at that moment?”
It is a brilliant question because it shifts the focus from the story’s narrative to the inner life. Authentic memories have information with regard to senses, thoughts, and feelings. If you were really in a car accident, you would remember the screech of the tires, the smell of burnt rubber, and the feeling of panic.
Liars, on the other hand, tend to create simple narratives. Why? Because building a complex, emotionally consistent lie is just too mentally taxing. This question probes for a layer of detail they almost certainly haven’t prepared.
This aligns with research on Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), which finds that accounts based on real experiences are richer in perceptual and affective features. It also creates what Dr. Paul Ekman, a pioneer in emotion research, calls a “hot spot”—a moment where there’s a disconnect between the story and the emotion that should accompany it. A vague or illogical answer to “What were you thinking?” is a major hot spot.
“What’s one detail you might have forgotten to mention?”
This is a good non-punitive manner of getting them to elaborate. And the difference in how truthful people and deceptive people respond is telling.
Truth-tellers can almost always provide more information when prompted. Their memory of the event is like a deep well; they can always pull up another bucket of details. They might say, “Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention the traffic was awful” or “Come to think of it, the waiter seemed really rushed.”
Liars, however, are often reluctant to add to their story. They’ve rehearsed a script, and adding new, improvised elements increases the risk of contradicting themselves later. They only intend to stay within the script and not to give any new leads which can be cross-checked.
“Just so I’m clear, the money was taken?”
Pay close attention to the wording here. This phrase deliberately uses passive, distancing language—”the money was taken” instead of “you took the money.” This sets a small but brilliant linguistic trap.
A truthful person is likely to correct your passive framing with an active, first-person denial: “No, I didn’t take it.” They want to make their innocence clear.
A deceptive person, however, is often more comfortable with the passive construction because it psychologically removes them as the agent of the action. They might simply agree: “Yes, that’s right.” This aligns with one of the most robust findings in linguistic deception detection: liars avoid self-referencing pronouns like “I” and “me” to distance themselves from the lie.
“How did you really feel about that?”
This question tests the authenticity of emotions. Lying brings about an inner conflict. When a person is in the middle of telling a cheerful story, the guilt or anxiety may make their subconscious seep out through their vocabulary.
Psychology professor James Pennebaker, who developed software to analyze language, found that deceptive statements consistently contain more negative emotion words like “hate,” “worthless,” and “sad”. Even when the overall story is positive, these negative undertones can surface when you ask directly about feelings.
While you might not be an expert trained to spot a flash of contempt, the emotional tone of their verbal response can be just as revealing.
“So, to be perfectly honest, what’s your take?”
This is a subtle mirroring technique. Deception experts have found that liars often overuse what are called “bolstering” or qualifying phrases to make their statements sound more credible. These might be phrases like “to be honest,” “I swear,” “in all candors,” or “to tell you the truth.”
Ironically, someone may be about to bout to do the exact opposite when they say, “to tell you the truth.”
You can test them by employing one of those phrases yourself and just seeing what their response is. It’s a way of speaking their language to see how they respond. This is about looking for what experts call “clusters” of deceptive behavior.
“My memory of it is a little different. Help me understand your perspective.”
It is a masterclass in communication that does not result in confrontation. You’re not saying, “You’re lying” or “You’re wrong.” You’re simply stating a fact: “Our recollections don’t match.” This frames the problem as a shared one to be solved, not an accusation to be fought.
A truthful person will typically engage with curiosity. They’ll want to resolve the discrepancy: “Really? What do you remember? Maybe I’m mixing things up.”
A deceptive person, on the other hand, is more likely to become defensive, shut down, or even attack your memory. When a detail is questioned, a person caught in a lie will often stumble over their words, whereas a truthful person will simply try to explain the inconsistency. This phrase creates the perfect, low-pressure opportunity to observe that stumble.
“Is there any reason someone might say they saw your car there?”
This is known as the “bait question,” a favorite tactic of skilled investigators. In this case, you aren’t claiming to have evidence. You’re asking them to react to a hypothetical situation.
An innocent person, knowing they weren’t there, will be confused but firm: “No, that’s impossible. They must be mistaken.”
A guilty person’s mind will go into overdrive: Who saw me? What do they know? How do I explain this without admitting anything? Their response will be far more calculated. They can delay, attempt to discredit the imaginary witness, or query you a line of questions to understand what you are aware of. You’re testing their reaction to the threat of evidence, which triggers the fear and stress associated with deception.
“You mentioned you were wearing a blue shirt. Tell me more about that.”
Liars tend to add unnecessary and irrelevant details into the story in order to give it a more natural, believable look. They expect you to focus on the main event, not the fluff they’ve added around the edges.
With an unexpected sharp zoom on a trifling detail, such as the color of their shirt or what they had to eat, you force them to improvise. They have to invent a backstory for a detail that was only meant as window dressing. Their ability to elaborate will be thin because deceptive individuals add more detail to the prologue of a story, but gloss over the main event where the lie actually happens.
“Before we get into that, how was your weekend?”
This might seem like simple small talk, but it’s a critical intelligence-gathering tool. The very basic principle of accurate deception detection is the setting of a baseline. You can’t spot abnormal behavior if you don’t know what’s normal for that person.
This question is non-threatening and easy to answer truthfully. As they respond, pay close attention. How fast do they talk? What’s their normal level of eye contact? How many gestures do they use? This is their “truthful” profile. Any significant deviations from this baseline later on, when you ask more difficult questions, are what experts call a “hot spot” that signals something is amiss.
“What’s the most straightforward way to explain this?”
This phrase gently pushes for simplicity. Truthful explanations are usually pretty straightforward. Honest explanations are usually very direct. A liar will tend to twist themselves into more complex sentence structures. They would use excessive language, jargon, and use of formal terminology. They’re trying too hard to sound convincing.
Linguistic analysis shows that while the concepts in a lie are simple, the sentences used to convey them are often long and complex. Asking for the “straightforward” version can help strip away this verbal camouflage.
“I’m a little confused on that point. Could you run it by me again?”
This is a gentle, non-combative request to repeat. You are framing it as your own lack of understanding; which lowers their defenses. But what you’re really doing is increasing their cognitive load.
A truthful person will repeat the story, likely with minor, natural variations in wording. A liar is under pressure to recall their script perfectly. Any deviation could expose them. The stress of perfect recall often causes them to leak other cues of deception. It’s a gentle way of giving them another opportunity to get tangled in their own story.
“What would happen if I checked that with [person’s name]?”
This is a direct test of the verifiability of their statement. You’re not saying you will check, but you’re floating the possibility.
An honest person’s reaction is typically, “Go ahead. They’ll tell you the same thing.” They have nothing to hide.
A liar, however, is now faced with the imminent collapse of their story. Their response will likely involve stalling (“Well, you could, but…”), trying to convince you not to check (“They don’t really remember things well”), or attacking the credibility of the other person. This tactic is powerful because it challenges the unverifiable nature of their story without making a direct accusation.
“Is there anything else you want to add?” (Followed by a strategic pause)
This is a simple but incredibly powerful closing question. It gives the person one last chance to come clean. The real magic, however, is in the silence that follows.
Most people are deeply uncomfortable with silence and will rush to fill it. FBI agents are trained to use a natural pause of 2-4 seconds after a response to observe the interviewee. During this silence, an honest person might say nothing more. But a liar, enduring the intense mental and emotional pressure you’ve built throughout the conversation, might break. They can either confess or serve you a weaker, more desperate lie that’s liable to be easier to detect.
“Look, this isn’t a huge deal, but my policy is always honesty. Let’s just reset.”
This phrase is a masterful way to offer an “out.” It does two things perfectly: it minimizes the stakes (“this isn’t a huge deal”) and it provides a moral off-ramp (“let’s just reset”).
By downplaying the severity, you make it psychologically easier for them to confess without feeling like their world is ending. By appealing to the shared value of honesty, you’re giving them a reason to come clean and repair the trust. This is a condensed version of a technique used by skilled interrogators, who often develop themes that psychologically justify or excuse an offense to make confession easier. It offers the possibility of forgiveness, which is a powerful motivator for someone to finally admit the truth.
Key Takeaway
Smart people know that lie detection isn’t a superpower; it’s a skill in strategic communication. Forget looking for a single “tell.” The core idea is to increase the “cognitive load” on the speaker. Use techniques like asking for the story in reverse to make fabrication more mentally taxing than simple recall.
Pay attention to linguistic red flags like distancing language (fewer “I” statements), formal denials (“did not” vs. “didn’t”), and overuse of phrases like “to be honest. The aim isn’t to call someone a liar and win an argument. It’s to create a conversation where inconsistencies can’t survive and the truth becomes the easiest and most attractive path. It’s about being a truth-seeker, not a human polygraph.
Disclaimer – This list is solely the author’s opinion based on research and publicly available information. It is not intended to be professional advice.
Like our content? Be sure to follow us
How to Save on International Money Transfers: What Banks Don’t Tell You
How to Save on International Money Transfers
Normally, I’d question the secret fees that are hidden in my bank’s international money transfer services. While banks sometimes advertise low transfer fees, they usually do not mention the substantial exchange rate margins that quietly siphon money out of your funds. It shouldn’t be expensive to send money overseas.
I’ve discovered seven practical strategies anyone can use to save on international money transfers. Whether you’re sending a hundred dollars to a family member or paying for a service in a foreign country, these tactics will help you hold onto more of your hard-earned cash.
12 Kitchen Hacks You May Not Know
12 Kitchen Hacks You May Not Know
Sometimes preparing meals and just dealing with food can feel like a bore and a chore – or just plain frustrating! We’ve got the best food hacks to pass down to you to get you in and out of the kitchen fast. Not more drudgery, and dare we say it, some of these hacks are kind of fun. Save money, too. Win-win!
Do you have a kitchen hack we should know about?
