Rivera PSY210 Documented Research Paper

Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist?

Documented Research Paper

Raymond Rivera

PSY 210, Section N40 (40732)

Professor Faye Hoese

26 September 2009

Rivera - 1Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist?

Lying is a very interesting subject for social psychologists. As scientists and

psychologists began studying and conducting research in lying, other questions emerged. How

do we know when someone is lying? Why do we lie? How can we detect deception? In the

search to answer these questions, a small percentage of people have been discovered that can

detect deception at a rate higher than chance percentage. These people have become known as

human lie detectors or are called “Wizards” by some researchers. Other researchers have tried to

either prove or disprove the findings of people that have a unique ability to identify deception in

human communications above the average percentages of accuracy. To explore whether lie

detection wizards are a true finding, this paper will explore 5 key areas; what studies have been

conducted, what are the characteristics common in human lie detectors, how do they achieve

such a high level of accuracy in detection, what difficulties do they face in doing so, and is it

possible to train someone to be accurate in lie detection over chance percentages. With so much

research having been conducted in the areas of lying and detection of deception, one thing is

certain, human lie detectors with above chance percentage accuracies do exist.

One of the most prominent studies conducted in deception detection was by Dr. Maureen

O’Sullivan and Ekman in 2004. Dr. O’Sullivan is a professor of psychology at the University of

San Francisco. In this study 13,000 people were tested in their abilities to detect deception. Three

different tests were used to establish the findings reported by Dr. O’Sullivan. From this 13,000

people tested, only 31 of them were able to detect deception at a rate higher than chance

percentages. Dr. O’Sullivan calls these people wizards (“Lying and deceit – The Wizards

Project”, 2004).

In another study, conducted by Bond and DePaulo in 2006, the ability for a small group

of people to detect deception above chance percentage was also discovered. Bond defines the


percentages associated with deception detection as 70%-80% accuracy being above-chance and

35%-40% accuracy being below-chance (Deception Detection Expertise, 2008). This research

also produced evidence that normal detection accuracy is close to a 54% average. In the

particular studies producing these resulting percentages of accuracy, most of the participants

were university graduates used as the detectors.

In yet another study conducted in 1991 by Ekman and O’Sullivan, 34 people that were

from the Secret Service Forensic Services Division were tested in deception detection. In this

study video tapes of undergraduate nurses either lying or telling the truth were used from a study

conducted by Ekman et al. in 1974. More than half of the 34 people tested were determined to be

above 70% accurate in detecting deception in the videotaped subjects. Additionally, one-third of

this group was able to detect deception above 80% accuracy. In 1999, Ekman et al. conducted

another study on a group of federal officers and the results showed once again that a portion of

these participants were 80% accurate in their ability to detect deception.

In the research findings detailed by Bond (Deception Detection Expertise, 2008) 4

different tests were used to establish deception detection accuracy. The 4 tests would be

administered in 2 separate experiments for a total of 8 tests. During this study, only 2 participants

tested at above 80% accuracy and above 90% accuracy on a second evaluation that used the

same four types of testing as in the first study. The two subjects from the group of 34 that

demonstrated the “Wizard” ability in deception detection were both Native American Bureau of

Indian Affairs correctional officers and were female. The fact these 2 participants were women

and Native Americans have no relevance in an overall assessment of what characteristics are

present in the small group of lie detection wizards as you will read about later in this paper.


These studies do support that a small percentage of people exist in our population that

have an ability to detect deception at a very high percentage of accuracy. Based on the results of

these studies, human lie detectors or wizards do exist. There are a few characteristics present in

these human lie detectors. Though these characteristics are not exactly the commonalities some

would expect, they can be seen within those people considered lie detection experts. One

characteristic noted by Dr. O’Sullivan in her study of 13,000 participants was the presence of

motivation. O’Sullivan (“Lying and deceit – The Wizards Project”, 2004) states the wizards are

“…really interested in being able to understand other people.” They are well practiced at lie

detection and are extremely attentive when doing so. Another characteristic noted by O’Sullivan

is a high level of “…relevant life experience”.

In another article, O’Sullivan comments on some additional characteristics found in lie

detection wizards (“Scientists pick out human lie detectors, 2004). She states that both genders

are equally spread within the group of lie detection wizards, so being a man or woman has no

relevance as a trait common in this group. One thing common to all of them is a constant practice

of their skills in detection. The education levels seemed to also have no relevance in the unique

accuracy demonstrated in lie detection by this group either. The group included high school

graduates as well as doctors. All of the participants found to be detection experts were

considered intelligent. The group consisted of “attorneys” as well as “hunters”. An interesting

find by Dr. O’Sullivan was that of this group, “… 20 to 30 percent reported some sort of

childhood trauma…”

Some of the traits or personal experiences discovered in the detection experts may play a

role in how these individuals can detect deception with a very high percentage of accuracy. The

group consisted of hunters, they must be constantly aware of the details in their environment to


be successful while hunting any type of animal. The attorneys must become experts at human

communications and interactions when doing their job. This allows them to possibly be more

successful in meeting their goals in any project, tasking or case they may be working on. Those

that experienced some sort of childhood trauma may have had to become expert detectors of

basic human emotions from observation of non-verbal cues exhibited by family members.

Another key point to focus on is that O’Sullivan stated that Secret Service agents tended to show

strong performance in lie detection. These agents are trained to specifically pick out threats

based on non-verbal cues. Still, at this time it is very difficult to pinpoint any single personality

trait, life experience, gender, race, education level or area of expertise that will produce a lie

detection wizard. Instead, common traits found in human lie detectors loosely relate more to how

these experts come to possess the skill of accurately detecting deception above the chance

percentages.

These skills demonstrated or expressed by the participants considered human lie detectors

in these studies are integral in enabling them to detect deception with a high percentage of

accuracy. When someone discusses how to determine if someone is lying, most of the time non-

verbal cues are the key in doing so. In an article by Suzanne Pitner, (“How to Tell if Someone is

Lying”, 2009), she highlights many non-verbal cues and communications that can be used to

determine when deceit is taking place. She outlines 4 body language cues that can be used in lie

detection. The first is eye movement, if the person was looking at you and looked away, this may

be an indication of deception. This seems to be a common non-verbal cue to look for in many lie

detection scenarios or events.

Another thing to pay close attention to, according to Pitner, is the pitch of voice used in

verbal communications. Staying focused on pitch changes is the key here and attests to machines


capable of measuring stress in vocal patterns. Also noted is the actual movement of the

individual’s body during a conversation. For this item, she states that an observer must be

familiar with the individual’s “baseline behavior” before coming to a conclusion that deceit is

taking place. Pitner suggests 10 signs to be look aware of when judging a person’s truthfulness.

All 10 of these fall into one or more of the 4 categories discussed above. The difficulties in

developing accurate determinations using these techniques are also brought to light in her article.

With relevance to baseline knowledge, Brandt et al. conducted studies to determine the

level of accuracy in deception detection. What was discovered is that when a participant was

made aware of baseline behaviors, they were significantly better at detecting deception. Also

discovered was that further “…exposure did not significantly increase accuracy.” (“Familiarity

and lie detection: A replication and extension”, 1982) So here, with prior knowledge of baseline

information, people were better able to differentiate an observed subject’s normal behavior from

abnormal, alluding to the presence of deception in their communications. However, with

additional disclosure of baseline information, the level of accuracy a participant would be able to

detect deception was not as greatly affected. Therefore, simply focusing on one particular

behavior or cue would not improve accuracy, even if baselines were established for the subjects

being observed. These difficulties are similar to those outlined in Pitner’s 2009 article.

Other items discovered through the conduct of varying studies is how the human lie

detectors process information and make judgments based on that information. A professor at the

University of New Brunswick, Mary Ann Campbell (2005) suggested, “The manner in which a

person approaches decision making is thought to influence the amount of information he or she

gathers, how this information is organized and interpreted, and the number of alternatives a

person considers when making a decision.” This attests to the cognitive capabilities the lie


detection experts may possess above those of the majority of people found to detect deception at

chance or below percentages.

An elaboration of cognitive ability in how the detection experts processed information

has been made. Bond states (“Detection Deception Expertise”, 2007), “…experts are actively

processing behavioral information, rather than relying on intuition to make decisions.” This

conclusion was drawn by researchers when it was discovered that detection experts could rapidly

make decisions of deception based on non-verbal cues observed in the subjects being watched.

While those participants in the study that tested at normal rates of detection accuracy were

slower to react and make decisions based on the same behavioral information witnessed in

observed subjects. The detection experts were cognitively analyzing the behavior of the people

they were observing while those that had chance percentages of accuracy were using intuition to

detect deception.

To determine what specific tools were used by the experts in the study published by Bond

(2007), eye tracking analysis technology was utilized. What was discovered is that both experts

discovered through this study used both cognitive and emotional cues from the subjects being

observed to determine deception. While both experts may have been looking at different areas of

the given subject at the time of decision, these areas showed they were observing non-verbal

cues such as body movement, facial expression, and possibly audio cues compared against these

non-verbal actions to narrow down whether the person was being deceptive or not.

Both cognitive and emotional aspects of communication are used by the experts to be

able to accurately detect a lie. Looking back to the O’Sullivan study group where 31 wizards

were identified, she pointed out (2004) “Our wizards are extraordinarily attuned to detecting the

nuances of facial expressions, body language and ways of talking and thinking.” The speed at


which these experts detected the non-verbal cues was also above normal and very detailed.

O’Sullivan called these uncontrolled facial expressions “micro-expressions” that last for a

fleeting moment but are detected by the experts and attribute to their ability to accurately detect

deception above chance percentages. The emotional aspects of deception and communication can

be found in these micro-expressions in someone’s face. Cognitive communication involves how

we communicate in an overt manner. This is where you would look for pitch changes in voice,

use of words where they don’t seem to fit in logically and even the flow in which someone

communicates as a telling sign of deception.

Some studies have been conducted using text analysis to assess deception in

communications. From these studies researchers have determined that, as Kornet (1997) wrote

“…there are certain language patterns that predict when someone is being less than honest.”

Again the difficulty here is in the accuracy of detection. As we will explore later in this paper,

there are people that can be deceptive without exhibiting many of the cognitive and emotional

cues traditionally used in lie detection.

Other methods in use to aid in lie detection, although not used by the wizards highlighted

in this paper, are mechanical. These are polygraph tests, thermal imaging technology and brain

fingerprinting to name a few (“All About Lying (Honest!), 2009). While these methods do tap

into and monitor some of the same non-verbal cues that the human lie detectors do, the

technologies themselves have an influence on those very cues they seek to isolate. Being

connected to a lie detector can cause nervousness and peak some of the non-verbal cues the

machine is designed to detect. A condition in which thermal imaging technology has been used

to detect deception is also flawed in that certain physiological factors are affected by the

environments this technology has been commonly employed in. Used predominantly in airports,


physiological effects caused in some people that are about to fly or have flown can create false

detections of deception. Brain fingerprinting is a technology in that it detects an individual’s

familiarity with certain objects. However, the technology has limitations since it cannot

differentiate if the familiarity of an object is based on use of that object or just observation of it.

Even technologies used to detect lying have faults and limitations as do humans in the

same respect. People are not physically capable of detecting when someone is lying because

there are no sense organs for doing so. Instead multiple cues must be observed that will give us

the ability to decide whether someone is being truthful. To zero in on one specific type of cue

that can give us a hint as to one’s deception is not reliable. Since we can observe and interpret

multiple cues in communications, we can use the presence of these cues and piece them together

as you would a puzzle. Now when multiple cues are present, we can more accurately detect the

deception of a communicator. In communication however, not all cues used to determine an

individual’s truthfulness are not readily present. For example, over the phone only audible cues

can be used to determine if a lie is being told. The visual cues that many people utilize when

attempting to detect deception are gone. The same can be said of internet forms of

communication. While there may be access to some visual non-verbal communication online, it

is still limited when compared with face-to-face communications.

Being able to detect deception is a difficult process because lying is such a normal part of

society. Studies and experiments conducted in lying and communication have produced results

that tell us people lie to varying degrees on a daily basis. In a study by DePaulo and her

colleagues (1996), 147 people were asked to maintain a diary where they were to record all of

the lies they had told over the course of 1 week. The people in this group ranged from 18 to 71

years of age. From this particular study, DePaulo et al. discovered that people lie once or twice in


the course of one day. This proof suggests that lying is indeed a very normal and often integral

part in how we communicate with each other.

The study also found that men and women both lie in almost 1 of every 5 social

encounters that lasted 10 or more minutes in duration. The study group also contained a

percentage of college students. With this particular group, it was found that they lied to their

parents in half of all the conversations they had with them. This study did not just seek to record

when the participants lied, but why and what they lied about in any situation. This allowed the

researchers to determine some social aspects of lying and communication. By organizing when,

why and even how lies were told by the participants, the researchers could define specific social

exchanges or interactions where lying was more or less acceptable.

The researchers broke down the content of the lies told in this study into five areas. In the

study of 147 people in 1996, DePaulo wrote (2004), “People lied about (1) their feelings and

opinions; (2) their actions, plans, and whereabouts; (3) their knowledge, achievements and

failings; (4) explanations for their behaviors; and (5) facts and personal possessions.” The lies

told regarding feelings and opinions were more commonplace in the social interactions for this

group. While the lies told about facts and personal possessions were least likely in the social

interactions within the same group. This study did provide some very interesting information in

how, why and when people lie. It opened additional inquiry as to what role social acceptability

plays in lying as part of everyday social interactions.

As children, generally we are taught that lying is a bad thing to do. However, as children

grow, social environments they observe or find themselves in give us contrary information. Take

for instance a lie told to an acquaintance regarding food they prepared for a pot-luck at work. A

person may lie and tell the acquaintance the food was delicious, even if it was not. This is a lie,


but it is told to preserve the feelings of the acquaintance. These lies are considered false

positives, in that while not true, they provide a sort of buffer in the social environment. The

existences of false negative lies are also present in our social environments. However, false

positive lies are “10 to 20 times more common than false negative lies” (Kornet, 1997).

Another social pressure to lie comes from witnessing the degree of punishment an

employee receives when they tell their boss they slept in as opposed to getting a flat tire on the

way to work. So even though we are taught lying is a bad as children, our social environments

teach us different when we are exposed to certain situations where a buffer is needed. Kornet

(1997) suggests that “though some lies produce interpersonal friction, others may actually serve

as a kind of harmless social lubricant.” The primary reasons for lying are to escape punishment

or get something we desire. Social environments will teach us that some lies are acceptable while

others are not. Even certain social situations and relationships will open doors for different types

of lies as some studies have shown.

Lies told in romantic relationships are somewhat different than those told in everyday

communications with others. Kornet (1997) wrote “…DePaulo finds that dating couples lie to

each other in about a third of their interaction - perhaps even more often than they deceive other

people.” While this is true of dating relationships, DePaulo discovered that married couples told

minor lies in 10 percent of their interactions with each other. The type of relationship shared

between two people plays a role in the frequency and even type of lies that are used in their

social interactions. With lying being so prevalent in our social environments, many difficulties

present themselves when trying to detect if someone is being deceptive.

With deception being a sort of necessity in our social environments, many studies have

also sought to determine who will lie. Kornet (1997) wrote, “Further research reveals that


extroverted, sociable people are slightly more likely to lie, and that some personality and

physical traits – notably self-confidence and physical attractiveness – have been linked to an

individual’s skill at lying when under pressure.” DePaulo (2004) also pointed out that in the

diary study “People who tell many lies are, in fact, more manipulative and irresponsible than

people who tell few lies. Frequent liars also care deeply about what other people think of them

and are more extraverted.” When an individual is more practiced and confident in their social

interactions with others, it seems they are more likely to be deceptive under certain

circumstances. It is also the individual having a very personal relationship with someone that

will more readily lie to preserve the other person’s emotions.

Another key factor of communication is an individual’s ability to empathize with others.

In an Article it is stated that “Having empathy is necessary to lie, because you have to understand

another person’s thoughts and feelings to be able to make them believe your lie.” (All About

Lying (Honest!), 2009). According to this, a person’s ability to empathize with another in a given

social situation will produce even greater difficulty in being able to detect deception. The better

someone is at being able to determine what another is feeling or thinking, the better they will be

at telling the other person a lie. With less ability to empathize, a person will have greater

difficulty in getting others to believe what they are saying. I believe that this too plays a role in

determining if someone is more likely to be deceptive in a given social situation.

There is another side to the likelihood of telling lies. Researchers have discovered there

are people that are less likely to lie. Kornet (1997) noted, “…people least likely to lie are those

who score high on psychological scales of responsibility and those with meaningful same-sex

friendships.” Another interesting discovery by psychiatrist Charles Ford cited by Kornet (1997)

was that people experiencing depression “seldom deceive others – or are deceived themselves –


because they seem to perceive and describe reality with greater accuracy than others.” The

implications of this mean that social pressures, relationships and even our state and stability of

mind have an effect on when, why and how a person will lie. A person’s sense of self and their

environments will play a role in the deceptions that person will use or be subject to in the social

interactions and environments they find themselves.

Not every social interaction will contain a lie, although studies show they will be present

on a regular basis. Under scrutiny, lying and social interactions seem to have a necessary

relationship. This is where the idea of lying as a “social lubricant” comes into play. Positive and

negative outcomes produced by lying determine the acceptability of deception in society. Lies

told to benefit others would be deemed more acceptable whereas lying to harm someone else is

not. Criminals on the other hand find it acceptable to lie in order to avoid punishment for their

crimes. While not seen as acceptable by the general society, it is definitely acceptable in the

social realm of the criminal.

We’ve examined the expert lie detector and some difficulties they face in deception

detection because of the frequent inclusion of deception in our social environments. What about

the difficulties presented by what can be considered expert liars. In an article, O’Sullivan (2004)

states that in regards to non-verbal cues and micro-expressions, “Certain types of people known

as “super liars” are aware of those problems [the cues that are identified when someone is

detecting deception]”. (“Scientists pick out human lie detectors”, 2004). Experts at hiding the

non-verbal cues used in lie detection present even more difficulties in deception detection.

Many of the articles giving advice on how to detect deception warn of non-verbal cues

and micro-expressions not always being associated with a lie. There are other physiological

factors that can produce the same non-verbal cues or micro-expressions that have been outlined


in lie detection. When a possibility exists that a cue can be triggered by something other than

deception, other cues have to be rapidly considered and taken into account.

When examining all the information compiled from these types of deception studies, it is

clear that someone trying to determine deception is going to face many difficulties in doing so.

Detecting deception requires observational and cognitive skills that are not held by the average

person. Because we process our social environments in a heuristic way, the level of detail

required to accurately determine when someone is lying is limited. The lie detection wizards

practice their skills and this helps to develop the detail in their observation of non-verbal cues in

communication. It is like training themselves to turn off the heuristic processing that normally

takes place in a social environment.

Can someone be trained to better detect deception? Campbell (2005) suggests that “…

those more attuned to emotional information, such as high emotional intelligence, may be more

proficient lie detectors.” If an individual can increase their emotional intelligence, their ability to

pick up on emotional cues in a subject and process that information based on other present cues,

they can theoretically increase their deception detection accuracy. The research conducted to

determine if lie detection experts exist has resulted in the finding that expert lie detectors

perceive information and process it differently than people that fall in chance percentages of

accuracy.

In an article by Feeley et al., a study was conducted to determine what cues were used by

participants to determine deception. In this study, Feeley et al. claimed “Results indicated that

subjects primarily used a communicator’s verbal plausibility, nervousness, and non-verbal

expectancy violation to guide their veracity judgments.” This research also showed that it was


more difficult to detect deception than it was to detect the truth as the study resulted in accuracy

being higher for truth judgments as opposed to deception judgments.

The level of suspicion that is present when someone is trying to detect deception also

plays a role in accuracy as was discovered in a study published by McCornack et al. in 1990. In

the article, it is stated that “Results suggest that both situationally-aroused suspicion and GCS

[generalized communicative suspicion] significantly increased accuracy.” This study was

conducted on couples who were not married and concluded that suspicion of deception did

improve the accuracy of determining a lie was told by their partners. Again, suspicion alone

would not be required to increase accuracy in detection. A relationship between the person

observing and the person being judged in honesty must also be present.

Further studies on how the lie detection wizards achieve such high percentages of

accuracy can produce guidelines for training people to increase their individual skills needed to

detect lies. In an article it is stated that “In a very few instances, training may improve detection

accuracy, but the change is very small, a few percentage points at most.” (“Can Training Help

People Detect Lying and Deception”, 2009). In limited situations training can increase accuracy,

however these were very controlled situations where the cues used in detection were already

identified and watched for. Training in itself would not be able to produce the level of detection

accuracy that is found in the wizards of lie detection. This is because the dynamics of lying in

our social environments include so many factors. Items to focus on in one environment may not

be the same for another. When observing one person and then doing the same for another, we

would have to constantly change the cues we were looking for because people will communicate

and lie in many different ways and for many different reasons.


The studies conducted with lie detection wizards do show above chance percentage

accuracy. The traits and characteristics of these individuals have no direct relation to the levels of

accuracy they were able to achieve in lie detection. Most of the techniques used by the experts to

detect deception at such high percentages of accuracy are tied to their emotional and cognitive

abilities where non-verbal cues are paired with verbal cues and overt behavior in the subjects

they were observing. Because lying and deception are an integral part of how people

communicate, the task of human lie detection is a very difficult one at that. Training strategies to

increase an individual’s ability to accurately detect deception have resulted in few improvements

in the increase of accuracy, except in some controlled environments.

Through all of this research, people with an amazing ability to detect lies at high

accuracy rates have been discovered. The difficulties in deception detection have also been

highlighted by many of the same studies. The prevalence and necessity of deception in our social

environments has also been pointed out through many of these studies. However, multiple

studies in varying locations have resulted in the discovery of a small percentage of human lie

detectors. They do exist, and are capable of telling when someone is being deceptive at

accuracies better than most of the known lie detection technology we have in use today.


Works Cited

All About Lying (Honest!). Retrieved August 27, 2009, from

http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/pdfs/lying_resource.pdf

Bond, G. (2008). Deception Detection Expertise. Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 339-51.

Retrieved September 12, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1509937231).

Brandt, David R., Miller, Gerald R. & Hocking, John E. (1982). Familiarity and lie detection: A

replication and extension. Western Journal of Communication, 46 (3), 276-290. Retrieved

September 13, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10570318209374086

Campbell, Mary Ann (2005). The Human Lie Detector? UNB Perspectives, March 22, 2005.

Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.unb.ca/perspectives/about.html

Can Training Help People Detect Lying and Deception? Retrieved September 10, 2009 from

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/detecting_deceit/public/detection_training.html

Feeley, Thomas H., & deTurck, Mark A. (1995). Global cue usage in behavioral lie

detection. Communication Quarterly, 43(4), 420. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from Research

Library. (Document ID: 9378277).

Kornet, Allison (1997). The Truth About Lying. Psychology Today. Retrieved August 27, 2009 from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/the-truth-about-lying

Kruglanski, Arie W. (Ed.). (2007). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd Edition).

New York, NY, USA: Guilford Publications, Incorporated. Retrieved September 8, 2009 from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cochise/Doc?id=10201017&ppg=203,533,611

Lying and deceit – The Wizards Project (2004). Retrieved September 10, 2009, from

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/ama-lad100804.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/ama-lad100804.php

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/the-truth-about-lying

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/detecting_deceit/public/detection_training.html

http://www.unb.ca/perspectives/about.html

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10570318209374086

http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/pdfs/lying_resource.pdf


McCornack, Steven A., & Levine, Timothy R. (1990). When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship

between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. Communication

Monographs, 57(3), 219. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from Education Periodicals.

(Document ID: 2759392).

Miller Arthur G. (Ed.). (2004). DePaulo, Bella M. (Chapter 12) Social Psychology of Good and Evil.

New York, NY, USA: Guilford Publications, Incorporated. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cochise/Doc?id=10172299&ppg=317-340

Pitner, Suzanne (2009). How to Tell if Someone is Lying. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from

http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_tell_if_someone_is_lying

Scientists pick out human lie detectors (2004). The Associated Press. Copyright 2009. Retrieved

August 30, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249749/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249749/

http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_tell_if_someone_is_lying

Documents

Rivera PSY210 Documented Research Paper