TELLING LIES: Clues to Deceit by an EK Man

[Peetee Aitchei]

Very Valuable Knowledge to Research and Understand
It is also said in EK there is no such a thing as 'just a co-incidence'!

Emeritus Professor of Psychology (UCSF) PAUL EKMAN

Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage

Copyright (c) 1992, 1985 by Paul Ekman. All rights reserved.

[Extracts for educational and research purposes - Under Fair Use]

When the situation seems to be exactly what it appears to be, the
closest likely alternative is that the situation has been completely
faked; when fakery seems extremely evident, the next most probable
possibility is that nothing fake is present. -- Erving Goffman,
Strategic Interaction

The relevant framework is not one of morality but of survival. At
every level, from brute camouflage to poetic vision, the linguistic
capacity to conceal, misinform, leave ambiguous, hypothesize, invent
is indispensable to the equilibrium of human consciousness and
to the development of man in society. -- George Steiner, After Babel

If falsehood, like truth, had only one face, we would be in better
shape. For we would take as certain the opposite of what the liar
said. But the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand shapes and
a limitless field. -- Montaigne, Essays

--- ---

Introduction

After his meeting with Hitler, Chamberlain writes to his sister,
". . . in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw
in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could
be relied upon when he had given his word. . . ."]

Defending his policies against those who doubt Hitler's word,
Chamberlain five days later in a speech to Parliament explains
that his personal contact with Hitler allows him to say that
Hitler "means what he says."

When I began to study lies fifteen years ago I had no
idea my work would have any relevance to such a lie. I
thought it would be useful only for those working with
mental patients. My study of lies began when the therapists
I was teaching about my findings--that facial expressions
are universal while gestures are specific to each culture --
asked whether these nonverbal behaviors could reveal that
a patient was lying. Usually that is not an issue, but it
becomes one when patients admitted to the hospital because
of suicide attempts say they are feeling much better.

Every doctor dreads being fooled by a patient who commits
suicide once freed from the hospital's restraint. Their
practical concern raised a very fundamental question about
human communication: can people, even when they are very upset,
control the messages they give off, or will their nonverbal
behavior leak what is concealed by their words?

[...]

Hitler also had the advantage of deceiving someone who wanted
to be misled. Chamberlain was a willing victim who wanted to
believe Hitler's lie that he did not plan war if only the
borders of Czechoslovakia were redrawn to meet his demands.
Otherwise Chamberlain would have had to admit that his policy
of appeasement had failed and in fact weakened his country.

[...]

In many deceits the victim overlooks the liar's mistakes,
giving ambiguous behavior the best reading, [are collusive in]
helping to maintain the lie, to avoid the terrible consequences
of uncovering the lie. By overlooking the signs of his wife's
affairs a husband may at least postpone the humiliation of
being exposed as a cuckold and the possibility of divorce.
Even if he admits her infidelity to himself he may cooperate
in not uncovering her lies to avoid having to acknowledge it
to her or to avoid a showdown. As long as nothing is said he
can still have the hope, no matter how small, that he may
have misjudged her, that she may not be having an affair.

Not every victim is so willing. At times, there is nothing
to be gained by ignoring or cooperating with a lie.

Some lie catchers gain only by exposing a lie and if they do
so lose nothing. The police interrogator only loses if he is
taken in, as does the bank loan officer, and both do their job
well only by uncovering the liar and recognizing the truthful.

Often, the victim gains and loses by being misled or by
uncovering the lie; but the two may not be evenly balanced.

[...]

Most often lies fail because some sign of an emotion being
concealed leaks. The stronger the emotions involved in the lie,
and the greater the number of different emotions, the more
likely it is that the lie will be betrayed by some form of
behavioral leakage.

Hitler certainly would not have felt guilt, an emotion that
is doubly problematic for the liar--not only may signs of it leak,
but the torment of guilt may motivate the liar to make mistakes
so as to be caught. Hitler would not feel guilty about lying
to the representative of the country that had in his lifetime
imposed a humiliating military defeat on Germany. Unlike
Mary, Hitler did not share important social values with his
victim; he did not respect or admire him.

[...]

While there is some evidence about the behavioral clues to
deceit, it is not yet firmly established. My analyses of
how and why people lie and when lies fail fit the evidence
from experiments on lying and from historical and fictional
accounts. But there has not yet been time to see how these
theories will weather the test of further experiment and
critical argument. I decided not to wait until all the answers
are in to write this book, because those trying to catch liars
are not waiting.

[...]

My purpose in writing this book is not to address only
those concerned with deadly deceits. I have come to believe
that examining how and when people lie and tell the truth
can help in understanding many human relationships.

There are few that do not involve deceit or at least the
possibility of it. Parents lie to their children about sex to
spare them knowledge they think their children are not ready
for, just as their children, when they become adolescents,
will conceal sexual adventures because the parents won't
understand. Lies occur between friends (even your best friend
won't tell you), teacher and student, doctor and patient,
husband and wife, witness and jury, lawyer and client,
salesperson and customer.

Lying is such a central characteristic of life that better
understanding of it is relevant to almost all human affairs.

Some might shudder at that statement, because they view
lying as reprehensible. I do not share that view. It is too
simple to hold that no one in any relationship must ever lie;
nor would I prescribe that every lie be unmasked. Advice
columnist Ann Landers has a point when she advises her
readers that truth can be used as a bludgeon, cruelly inflicting
pain. Lies can be cruel too, but all lies aren't. Some lies,
many fewer than liars will claim, are altruistic. Some social
relationships are enjoyed because of the myths they preserve.

But no liar should presume too easily that a victim desires
to be misled. And no lie catcher should too easily presume
the right to expose every lie. Some lies are harmless, even
humane. Unmasking certain lies may humiliate the victim or
a third party. But all of this must be considered in more
detail, and after many other issues have been discussed.

The place to begin is with a definition of lying, a
description of the two basic forms of lying, and the two kinds
of clues to deceit.

--- ---

Lying, Leakage, and Clues to Deceit

EIGHT YEARS AFTER RESIGNING as president, Richard Nixon denied
lying but acknowledged that he, like other politicians, had
dissembled. It is necessary to win and retain public office,
he said. "You can't say what you think about this individual
or that individual because you may have to use him. . . . you
can't indicate your opinions about world leaders because you
may have to deal with them in the future."

Nixon is not alone in avoiding the term lie when not telling
the truth can be justified. As the Oxford English Dictionary
tells us: "in modern use, the word [lie] is normally a violent
expression of moral reprobation, which in polite conversation
tends to be avoided, the synonyms falsehood and untruth being
often substituted as relatively euphemistic."

It is easy to call an untruthful person a liar if he is disliked,
but very hard to use that term, despite his untruthfulness, if
he is liked or admired. Many years before Watergate, Nixon
epitomized the liar to his Democratic opponents -- "would you buy
a used car from this man?" -- while his abilities to conceal and
disguise were praised by his Republican admirers as evidence of
political savvy.


These issues, however, are irrelevant to my definition
of lying or deceit. (I use the words interchangeably.) Many
people -- for example, those who provide false information
unwittingly -- are untruthful without lying. A woman who
has the paranoid delusion that she is Mary Magdalene is not
a liar, although her claim is untrue. Giving a client bad
investment advice is not lying unless the advisor knew
when giving the advice that it was untrue. Someone whose
appearance conveys a false impression is not necessarily
lying. A praying mantis camouflaged to resemble a leaf is
not lying, any more than a man whose high forehead suggested
more intelligence than he possessed would be lying.

A LIAR CAN CHOOSE NOT TO LIE. Misleading the victim is
deliberate; the liar intends to misinform the victim. The lie
may or may not be justified, in the opinion of the liar or the
community. The liar may be a good or a bad person, liked or
disliked. But the person who lies could choose to lie or to be
truthful, and knows the difference between the two.

Pathological liars who know they are being untruthful but
cannot control their behavior do not meet my requirement.

Nor would people who do not even know they are lying, those
said to be victims of self-deceit. A liar may come over time
to believe in her own lie. If that happens she would no longer
be a liar, and her untruths, for reasons I explain in the
next chapter, should be much harder to detect.

[...]

It is not just the liar that must be considered in defining
a lie but the liar's target as well. In a lie the target has not
asked to be misled, nor has the liar given any prior notification
of an intention to do so. It would be bizarre to call actors
liars. Their audience agrees to be misled, for a time; that is
why they are there. Actors do not impersonate, as does the con
man, without giving notice that it is a pose put on for a time.

A customer would not knowingly follow the advice of a broker
who said he would be providing convincing but false information.
There would be no lie if the psychiatric patient Mary had told
her doctor she would be claiming feelings she did not have, any
more than Hitler could have told Chamberlain not to trust his
promises.

In my definition of a lie or deceit, then, one person intends
to mislead another, doing so deliberately, without prior
notification of this purpose, and without having been explicitly
asked to do so by the target.

There are two primary ways to lie: to conceal and to falsify.

In concealing, the liar withholds some information without
actually saying anything untrue. In falsifying, an additional
step is taken. Not only does the liar withhold true information,
but he presents false information as if it were true. Often it
is necessary to combine concealing and falsifying to pull off
the deceit, but sometimes a liar can get away just with
concealment.

Not everyone considers concealment to be lying; some people
reserve that word only for the bolder act of falsification.

[...]

When there is a choice about how to lie, liars usually
prefer concealing to falsifying. There are many advantages.
For one thing, concealing usually is easier than falsifying.

Nothing has to be made up. There is no chance of getting
caught without having the whole story worked out in advance.

Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said that he didn't
have a good enough memory to be a liar. If a doctor gives a
false explanation of a patient's symptoms in order to conceal
that the illness is terminal, the doctor will have to
remember his false account in order not to be inconsistent
when asked again a few days later.

Concealment may also be preferred because it seems less
reprehensible than falsifying. It is passive, not active.
Even though the target may be equally harmed, liars may feel
less guilt about concealing than falsifying. The liar can
maintain the reassuring thought that the target really knows
the truth but does not want to confront it. Such a liar
could think, "My husband must know I am playing around,
because he never asks me where I spend my afternoons. My
discretion is a kindness; I certainly am not lying to him
about what I am doing. I am choosing not to humiliate him,
not forcing him to acknowledge my affairs."

Concealment lies are also much easier to cover afterward
if discovered. The liar does not go as far out on a limb.

[...]

A liar loses the choice whether to conceal or falsify once
challenged by the victim.

[ Remembering often, the victim is intentionally barricaded from
being able to directly challenge or confront the liar. ]

Some lies from the outset require falsification; concealment
alone will not do.

Falsification also occurs, even though the lie does not
directly require it, to help the liar cover evidence of what
is being concealed. This use of falsification to mask what is
being concealed is especially necessary when emotions must be
concealed. It is easy to conceal an emotion no longer felt,
much harder to conceal an emotion felt at the moment,
especially if the feeling is strong. Terror is harder to
conceal than worry, just as rage is harder to conceal than
annoyance. The stronger the emotion, the more likely it is
that some sign of it will leak despite the liar's best attempt
to conceal it. Putting on another emotion, one that is not
felt, can help disguise the felt emotion being concealed.

Falsifying an emotion can cover the leakage of a concealed
emotion.

[ Hello Doug !!! ]

[...]

Any emotion can be falsified to help conceal any other
emotion. The smile is the mask most frequently employed.
It serves as the opposite of all the negative emotions--fear,
anger, distress, disgust, and so on. It is selected often
because some variation on happiness is the message required
to pull off many deceits. The disappointed employee must
smile if the boss is to think he isn't hurt or angry about
being passed over for promotion. The cruel friend should
pose as well-meaning as she delivers her cutting criticism
with a concerned smile.

Another reason why the smile is used so often to mask is
because smiling is part of the standard greeting and is
required frequently throughout most polite exchanges.

[...]

Another, related technique is to tell the truth but with
a twist, so the victim does not believe it. It is telling the
truth . . . falsely. When Jerry asked who Ruth was talking
to on the telephone she could have said: "Oh I was talking
to my lover, he calls every hour. Since I go to bed with him
three times a day we have to be in constant touch to arrange
it!" Exaggerating the truth would ridicule Jerry, making it
difficult for him to pursue his suspicious line. A mocking
tone of voice or expression would also do the trick.

[...]

A close relative of telling the truth falsely is a half
concealment. The truth is told, but only partially.

Understatement, or leaving out the crucial item, allows the
liar to maintain the deceit while not saying anything untrue.

[...]

Any of these lies can be betrayed by some aspect of the
deceiver's behavior. There are two kinds of clues to deceit.

A mistake may reveal the truth, or it may only suggest that
what was said or shown is untrue without revealing the truth.

When a liar mistakenly reveals the truth, I call it leakage.
When the liar's behavior suggests he or she is lying without
revealing the truth, I call it a deception clue.

A deception clue answers the question of whether or not the
person is lying, although it does not reveal what is being
concealed. Only leakage would do that. Often it does not
matter. When the question is whether or not a person is
lying, rather than what is being concealed, a deception clue
is good enough. Leakage is not needed. What information
is being held back can be figured out or is irrelevant.

[...]

But it is not always enough. It may be important to know
exactly what has been concealed. Discovering that a trusted
employee embezzled may be insufficient. A deception clue
could suggest that the employee lied; it might have led to
a confrontation and a confession. Yet even though the matter
has been settled, the employee discharged, the prosecution
completed, the employer might still seek leakage. He might
still want to know how the employee did it, and what he did
with the money he embezzled.

If Chamberlain had detected any deception clues he would
have known Hitler was lying, but in that situation it would
also have been useful to obtain leakage of just what his
plans for conquest were, how far Hitler intended to go.

Sometimes leakage provides only part of the information the
victim wants to know, betraying more than a deception clue
but not all that is being concealed.

[...]

I defined lying as a deliberate choice to mislead a target
without giving any notification of the intent to do so. There
are two major forms of lying: concealment, leaving out true
information; and falsification, or presenting false information
as if it were true. Other ways to lie include: misdirecting,
acknowledging an emotion but misidentifying what caused it;
telling the truth falsely, or admitting the truth but with
such exaggeration or humor that the target remains uniformed
or misled; half-concealment, or admitting only part of what
is true, so as to deflect the target's interest in what
remains concealed; and the incorrect-inference dodge, or
telling the truth but in a way that implies the opposite of
what is said.

There are two kinds of clues to deceit: leakage, when the
liar inadvertently reveals the truth; and deception clues,
when the liar's behavior reveals only that what he says is
untrue. Both leakage and deception clues are mistakes. They do
not always happen. Not all lies fail. The next chapter explains
why some do.

--- ---

Why Lies Fail

LIES FAIL for many reasons. The victim of deceit may
accidentally uncover the evidence, finding hidden documents
or a telltale lipstick stain on a handkerchief.

Someone else may betray the deceiver. An envious colleague,
an abandoned spouse, a paid informer, all are major sources
for the detection of deception. What concerns us, however,
are those mistakes made during the act of lying, mistakes
the deceiver makes despite himself, lies that fail because
of the liar's behavior. Deception clues or leakage may be
shown in a change in the expression on the face, a movement
of the body, an inflection to the voice, a swallowing in
the throat, a very deep or shallow breath, long pauses
between words, a slip of the tongue, a micro facial
expression, a gestural slip.

The question is: Why can't liars prevent these behavioral
betrayals? Sometimes they do. Some lies are performed
beautifully; nothing in what the liar says or does betrays
the lie. Why not always? There are two reasons, one that
involves thinking and one that involves feeling.

[...]

Any of these failures -- in anticipating when it will be
necessary to lie, in inventing a line adequate to changing
circumstances, in remembering the line one has adopted --
produce easily spotted clues to deceit. What the person says
is either internally inconsistent or discrepant with other
incontrovertible facts, known at the time or later revealed.

Such obvious clues to deceit are not always as reliable and
straightforward as they seem. Too smooth a line may be the
sign of a well-rehearsed con man. To make matters worse,
some con men, knowing this, purposely make slight mistakes
in order not to seem too smooth.

[...]

Lack of preparation or a failure to remember the line one
has adopted may produce clues to deceit in how a line is
spoken, even when there are no inconsistencies in what is
said. The need to think about each word before it is spoken
-- weighing possibilities, searching for a word or idea -- may
be obvious in pauses during speech or, more subtly, in a
tightening of the lower eyelid or eyebrow and certain
changes in gesture (explained in more detail in chapters 4
and 5).

Not that carefully considering each word before it is spoken
is always a sign of deceit, but in some circumstances it is.

[...]

Lying about Feelings

A failure to think ahead, plan fully, and rehearse the
false line is only one of the reasons why mistakes that
furnish clues to deceit are made when lying. Mistakes are
also made because of difficulty in concealing or falsely
portraying emotion. Not every lie involves emotions, but
those that do cause special problems for the liar. An attempt
to conceal an emotion at the moment it is felt could be
betrayed in words, but except for a slip of the tongue, it
usually isn't. Unless there is a wish to confess what is
felt, the liar doesn't have to put into words the feelings
being concealed.

One has less choice in concealing a facial expression or
rapid breathing or a tightening in the voice.

When emotions are aroused, changes occur automatically
without choice or deliberation. These changes begin in a
split second. In Marry Me, when Jerry accuses Ruth of lying,
Ruth has no trouble stopping the words "Yes, it's true!"
from popping out of her mouth. But panic about her affair
being discovered seizes her, producing visible and audible
signs. She does not choose to feel panic; nor can she
choose to stop feeling it. It is beyond her control. That,
I believe, is fundamental to the nature of emotional
experience.

People do not actively select when they will feel an
emotion. Instead, they usually experience emotions more
passively as happening to them, and, in the case of negative
emotions such as fear or anger, it may happen to them
despite themselves. Not only is there little choice about
when an emotion is felt, but people often don't feel they
have much choice about whether or not the expressive signs
of the emotion are manifest to others.

[...]

Feelings about Lying

Not all deceits involve concealing or falsifying emotions.

The embezzler conceals the fact that she is stealing money.
The plagiarist conceals the fact that he has taken the work
of another and pretends it is his own.
The vain middle-aged man conceals his age, dying his gray
hair and claiming he is seven years younger than he is.

Yet even when the lie is about something other than emotion,
emotions may become involved. The vain man might be
embarrassed about his vanity. To succeed in his deceit he
must conceal not only his age but his embarrassment as well.

The plagiarist might feel contempt toward those he misleads.
He would thus not only have to conceal the source of his
work and to pretend ability that is not his, he would also
have to conceal his contempt.

The embezzler might feel surprise when someone else is
accused of her crime. She would have to conceal her surprise
or at least the reason for it.

Thus emotions often become involved in lies that were not
undertaken for the purpose of concealing emotions.

Once involved, the emotions must be concealed if the lie is
not to be betrayed. Any emotion may be the culprit, but
three emotions are so often intertwined with deceit as to
merit separate explanation:

1) fear of being caught
2) guilt about lying, and
3) delight in having duped someone.


--- ---

Detecting Deceit from Words, Voice, or Body

"And how can you possibly know that I have told a lie?"
"Lies, my dear boy, are found out immediately, because they
are of two sorts. There are lies that have short legs, and
lies that have long noses. Your lie, as it happens, is one
of those that have a long nose." -- Pinocchio, 1892

PEOPLE WOULD LIE less if they thought there was any
such certain sign of lying, but there isn't. Then is no
sign of deceit itself -- no gesture, facial expression, or
muscle twitch that in and of itself means that a person is
lying. There are only clues that the person is poorly
prepared and clues of emotions that don't fit the person's
line.

These are what provide leakage or deception clues. The lie
catcher must learn how emotion is registered in speech,
voice, body, and face, what traces may be left despite a
liar's attempts to conceal feelings, and what gives away
false emotional portrayals. Spotting deceit also requires
understanding how these behaviors may reveal that a liar is
making up his line as he goes along.

It is not a simple matter to catch lies. One problem is
the barrage of information. There is too much to consider
at once. Too many sources -- words, pauses, sound of the
voice, expressions, head movements, gestures, posture,
respiration, flushing or blanching, sweating, and so on. And
all of these sources may transmit information simultaneously
or in overlapping time, competing for the lie catcher's
attention. Fortunately, the lie catcher does not need to
scrutinize with equal care everything that can be heard and
seen. Not every source of information during a conversation
is reliable. Some leak much more than others.

Strangely enough, most people pay most attention to the
least trustworthy sources -- words and facial expressions --
and so are easily misled.

[...]

Another reason why words are carefully monitored and so
often the chief target for disguise is that it is easy to
falsify -- to state things that are not true -- in words.
Exactly what is to be said can be written down and
reworded ahead of time.

[...]

While we all know that words can lie, my research has
found that people take others at their word and are often
misled. I am not suggesting that the words be totally ignored.

People do make verbal mistakes that can provide both leakage
and deception clues. And even if there are no mistakes in
the words, it is the discrepancy between the verbal line
and what is revealed by the voice, body, and face that often
betrays a lie. But most of the clues to deceit in the face,
body, and voice are ignored or misinterpreted.


[...]

The Words

Surprisingly, many liars are betrayed by their words because
of carelessness. It is not that they couldn't disguise
what they said, or that they tried to and failed, but simply
that they neglected to fabricate carefully.

[...]

Even a careful liar may be betrayed by what Sigmund Freud
first identified as a slip of the tongue. In 'The
Psychopathology of Everyday Life' Freud showed how the
faulty actions of everyday life, such as slips of the tongue,
the forgetting of familiar names, and mistakes in reading and
writing were not accidents but meaningful events revealing
internal psychological conflicts. Slips express, he said,
". . . something one did not wish to say: it becomes a mode
of self-betrayal."

Freud was not specifically concerned with deceit, but one of
his examples was of a slip that betrayed a lie.

[...]

The Voice

The voice refers to everything involved in speech other
than the words themselves. The most common vocal deception
clues are pauses. The pauses may be too long or too frequent.
Hesitating at the start of a speaking turn, particularly if
the hesitation occurs when someone is responding to a
question, may arouse suspicion. So may shorter pauses
during the course of speaking if they occur often enough.

Speech errors may also be a deception clue. These include
non words, such as "ah," "aaa," and "uhh"; repetitions,
such as "I, I, I mean I really . . ."; and partial words,
such as "I rea-really liked it."

These vocal clues to deceit--speech errors and pauses -- can
occur for two related reasons. The liar may not have worked
out her line ahead of time. If she did not expect to lie,
or if she was prepared to lie but didn't anticipate a
particular question, she may hesitate or make speech errors.

But these can also occur when the line is well prepared.
High detection apprehension may cause the prepared liar
to stumble or forget her line. Detection apprehension may
also compound the errors made by the poorly prepared liar.

Hearing how badly she sounds may make a liar more afraid of
being caught, which only increases her pauses and speech
errors.

(Hi Harold !!!)

[...]

Just as a vocal sign of an emotion, such as pitch, does not
always mark a lie, so the absence of any vocal sign of
emotion does not necessarily prove truthfulness. The
credibility of John Dean's testimony during the nationally
televised Senate Watergate hearings hinged in part on how
the absence of emotion in his voice -- his remarkably flat
tone of voice -- was interpreted. It was twelve months after
the break-in at the Watergate Democratic National Committee
headquarters when John Dean, counsel to President Nixon,
testified.

Nixon had finally admitted, a month earlier, that his aides
had tried to cover up the Watergate burglary, but Nixon
denied that he had known about it.

In the words of federal judge John Sirica: "The small fry
in the cover-up had been pretty well trapped, mostly by
each other's testimony. What remained to be determined was
the real guilt or innocence of the men at the top. And it
was Dean's testimony that was to be at the heart of that
question. . . . Dean alleged [in his Senate testimony] that
he told Nixon again that it would take a million dollars to
silence the [Watergate burglary] defendants, and Nixon
responded that the money could be obtained. No shock, no
outrage, no refusals. This was Dean's most sensational
charge. He was saying Nixon himself had approved the
pay-offs to the defendants."

The next day the White House disputed Dean's claims. In
his memoirs, published five years later, Nixon said, "I
saw John Dean's testimony on Watergate as an artful blend
of truth and untruth, of possible sincere misunderstandings
and clearly conscious distortions. In an effort to mitigate
his own role, he transplanted his own total knowledge of
the cover-up and his own anxiety onto the words and actions
of others."

At the time the attack on Dean was much rougher. Stories,
reputedly from the White House, were leaked to the press,
claiming that Dean was lying, attacking the president
because he was afraid of being homosexually attacked if
he went to jail.

[...]

The fact that Dean's performance was contrived, that he
was so talented in controlling his behavior, does not
necessarily mean that he was a liar, only that others
should have been wary of interpreting his behavior.

In fact, the subsequent evidence suggests that Dean's
testimony was largely true, and that Nixon, who, unlike
Dean, is not a very talented performer, was lying.

[end of extracts]

Refs:
https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Deception-Lying-And-Demeanor.pdf

http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Why-Dont-We-Catch-Liars.pdf

http://unilibrium.net/healthfiles/Dr.%20Paul%20Ekman%20-%20Telling%20Lies.pdf

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252429.Telling_Lies