Body Language & Airport Security

Beneath the surface of airport security’s highly regulated process lies one of the most human of tasks: recognising a face. Despite ever-improving facial recognition technologies and rigorous staff training, identifying impostors—those travelling under someone else’s identity—remains an unresolved challenge. Could body language be an overlooked factor?

Why Face Matching Isn’t Foolproof

Psychologists have long understood that matching unfamiliar faces is incredibly difficult—even for trained professionals. Studies by White et al. (2014) and Wirth & Carbon (2017) confirm that people struggle to spot when a person’s face doesn’t match their ID photo, especially in fast-paced, high-pressure environments. Much of this research has been conducted in the lab using static headshots on blank backgrounds (Jenkins & Burton, 2008; Fysh & Bindemann, 2017), which misses the messiness of real-life settings like airports.

Attempts to study face-matching in real-world environments—such as supermarkets (Kemp et al., 1997) or border control (White et al., 2014)—run into logistical and ethical hurdles. You’d struggle to run controlled deception experiments at Heathrow, but virtual reality (VR) may be an answer.

Virtual Reality: The Best of Both Worlds

VR allows researchers to recreate realistic airport scenarios with controlled variables, offering a lifelike yet ethically sound setting for experiments. In VR environments, avatars can be programmed to mimic realistic facial features and body behaviours, allowing for more comprehensive testing (Tummon et al., 2019; Bulthoff et al., 2019).

In a study by Tummon et al. (2020), participants acting as passport control officers were asked to verify the identities of virtual passengers. These avatars varied in body language—from calm to highly animated. The researchers wanted to know: could body language influence identification accuracy?

The experiments showed that passengers who appeared more active or fidgety triggered increased scrutiny from officers, which in some cases improved their ability to detect mismatches. But this came with a twist: the same behaviours also made officers more likely to wrongly assume deception, misidentifying legitimate travellers (Bindemann et al., 2016; Fysh & Bindemann, 2018).

This mirrors what’s already known: people often use body cues—like shifting posture, tapping feet, or fidgeting—as unconscious signals of dishonesty (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Akehurst et al., 1996). These assumptions are reflected in existing security programmes, such as the U.S. SPOT initiative, which trains officers to spot behavioural “tells” (U.S. GAO, 2010). But such techniques are controversial. Overreliance on stereotypes—like equating nervousness with guilt—risks penalising innocent but anxious travellers. It’s also the case that these behaviours may be perceived (unconsciously and consciously) as dishonesty signals but in reality they aren’t.

Training the Eye—and the Mind

What’s striking about the VR research is that body language didn’t influence decisions unless officers were explicitly told to watch for it. Once they were, their ability to detect impostors improved—by nearly 50% in some cases. However, this heightened vigilance also increased false positives, highlighting the fine line between enhanced security and biased judgement.

The “Othello error”—misreading honest nervousness as deceit—is a well-known pitfall in deception detection (Granhag et al., 2005). It underlines the need for more nuanced training, where officers are taught to interpret nonverbal cues with care and context, and in concert with other channels.

The Road Ahead

This growing body of evidence suggests a more integrated approach to identity verification at airports—one that combines facial recognition with behavioural insight, underpinned by more psychological research. Virtual reality, with its ability to simulate real-world complexities in a controlled space, may be the perfect training ground for this next frontier in security but it needs to be based on genuine cues and there are no absolute cues to deception. Nonetheless, VR can help the practice of building a case for who may be being deceitful.

References

Akehurst, L., et al. (1996). Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 49–59.

Bindemann, M., et al. (2016). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 925–933.

Bulthoff, I., et al. (2019). Journal of Vision, 19, 293.

Burgoon, J. K., et al. (2011). Nonverbal Communication. Routledge.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–129.

Fysh, M. C., & Bindemann, M. (2017a). Perception, 46, 855–877.

Fysh, M. C., & Bindemann, M. (2018a). Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 21.

Granhag, P. A., et al. (2005). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 149–165.

Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Cognition, 106, 709–738.

Kemp, R., et al. (1997). Nature, 387, 486.

Knapp, M. L., et al. (2013). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Wadsworth.

Rice, A., Phillips, P. J., & O’Toole, A. J. (2013). Journal of Vision, 13, 1–14.

Tummon, H. M., Allen, J., & Bindemann, M. (2020). i-Perception, 11(5), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520958033

United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). GAO-10-763.

White, D., et al. (2014). PLOS ONE, 9, e103510.

Wirth, B. E., & Carbon, C. C. (2017). Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 34.