The Ultimate Body Language Book

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Nose Language

When people are stressed, blood flushes into the skin. Our hands are then drawn to the areas most
affected due to increased sensitivity and heat so we tend to point out our stress. Enlarged capillaries in

the nose can induce our hands in it’s direction to sooth it. As blood flows to the nose, it enlarges,
giving credence to the ‘Pinocchio effect.’

Nose touching might also stem from lying. It can happen as a quick but purposeful touch, the finger
might graze the side of the nose, or it can be a persistent rubbing. Sometimes the touch is quick and
dirty in an up and down motion, other times it is a brief almost unnoticeable touch to the base of the
nose or its side. Face touching can come in two forms, one that serves a real function to alleviate an
itch, and one that is the result of negative feelings such as being uncomfortable and stressed. Face
touching that is due to an emotion is meant as a fix behind the sensation, the emotion, and not due to
any physical need.

In order to appear more honest in front of others, either reduce or eliminate all face touching, make
them appear more natural, or make them consistent in affect across all situations. Itching is usually a
repetitive isolated gesture, which happens regardless of what is said, and happens at times when it
would be impossible to assume a connection to what is being said. For example, saying something of
questionable truthfulness, then brushing the side of the nose with an index finger is likely to raise
suspicion, whereas bumping the nose when not speaking or when describing insignificant details would
go unnoticed. Always try to make gestures appear natural and functional instead and also be
particularly conscious of nose and face touching when you think someone is trying to peg you a liar.
Over time it is your baseline that will give you away, so if you remain consistent across all situations,
you’re less likely to give up tells. Most will find that their minds are more active and busy during lying,
so it’s easier to avoid gestures altogether instead of adding honest gestures. This makes eliminating face
touching one of the easiest ways to appear honest with minimal effort.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Closed Body Postures

Closed body postures, like hands hiding in pockets, indicate insecurity which we subconsciously
associate with lying.

Closed body positions, as we know, give off bad signals in general. When in a high pressure situation,
closing the body off in any way may lead people to think that you have something to hide. Tucking the
chin in, pulling the arms closer to the body, crossing the legs, turning the body away, and taking on a
less threatening profile are all attributed to lying. Another less obvious clue to being closed-off, is to
subconsciously place an object between the liar and interrogator, such as a book, brief case, or any
other “security-blanket.”

As we all know of course, closed body positions like the majority of the signals associated with liars is
in fact due to the stress, fear and hence nervousness of the interrogation. When “under attack” we close
up our bodies to make it appear smaller and less significant to draw less attention to it, which is a way
to protect our bodies in case the interrogation escalates into a physical attack. While most cultures
prohibit physical force during everyday encounters, we still have the mental hardwiring that programs
us to foresee physical violence, never mind the fact that a verbal threat is just as embarrassing and
visceral as any physical confrontation. Threatening language puts our minds at risk to long term
emotional damage, no different than being threatened by physical conflict. In our daily lives accusatory
situations, verbal threats, and scolding, ranks near the top as far as the sorts of harm we endure
throughout our lives. This is why we see our bodies react through body language to emotional threats,
as well as to the possibility of being uncovered as cheats and liars.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Eye Patterns In Lying

Eyes that wont make contact or seem to dart around as if they are fabricating stories can give liars
away.

Shifty eyes, where the eyes dart all over the room to focus on anything but someone else’s eyes, is
habitually associated with lying. However, as we learned previously, most practiced liars hold gaze
even more strongly than in normal situations. In a study that looked at seventy-five countries, it was
found that avoidance of eye contact was named as a lying trait in every single one of them. It is also
frequently named first as a tell, and was named by old and young people alike. This trend exists cross
culturally, despite any supportive scientific findings. People will stereotype liars as having shifty
posture, self touching, appear nervous, have broken speech and so forth, but it is the belief that “they
can’t look you in the eye” that is first and foremost on the tongue of all human lie detectors throughout
the world! I suppose it would be less fascinating if that trait actually did predict lying, but it doesn’t.
It’s simply a widespread belief that is passed down from generation to generation.

With regards to the general public who hold strong ideas about what a liar looks like, be sure to avoid
gaze avoidance! Looking away for long periods of time, especially while talking, shifty eyes as
mentioned, or using “stammering eyes”, which is the action of keeping the eyes closed for prolonged
periods of time have all been noted as giving liars away. Despite widespread beliefs about how liars
refuse to look other people in the eye, there is little empirical evidence to suggest its truth. Gaze
avoidance might be more closely associated with the intent of appearing more subordinate, or to reduce
anxiety and intensity so as to diffuse the situation.

Shutting out the outside world with stammering eyes can be a strong turn-off to other people, as can
eye gaze avoidance which is probably why people universally attribute bad eye language to dishonesty.
Negative impressions can stem from poor eye contact, even coming from the most honest and
trustworthy people especially when it is the desire of others to label someone a liar for their own
interest or purpose. It is a well known fact that when people hold specific beliefs they discount
information that disproves their ideas, and actively seek out information that support it, some of which
doesn’t exist in ready made form. To the more astute, it will come as obvious that reading bad eye
language can help us reduce the creation of false impressions about others. Just because someone has
unusual eye patterns does not mean that a person is lying, but chances are good that if you use bad eye
language, or see someone else use bad eye language, you and they will be classified as untrustworthy.

The final aspect related to eye language worth mentioning is pupil dilation. Under stress or arousal of
any kind, the pupils expand so as to allow more light in. This can include stress and fear due to lying, or
any other fearful situations for that matter, but does not discount the stimulus of seeing something
particularly attractive, as this too causes pupil dilation. By placing a suspect in the hot seat it is possible
to gauge what level of fear he has with regards to accusations because it eliminates the confusion that
outside stimulus creates larger pupils. However, like all lying language, pupil dilation is due to stress,
which can result from being put in the hot seat! It is the gauging of pupil size from baseline that tells us
something useful. Talking about something neutral like what they did last week on a random day, then
switching to something more questionable like whether or not the stole office supplies is a great way to
measure pupil differences as well as other lying language.

While we expect a liar to be more stressful overall, this isn’t always the case as has been one of the
reoccurring themes in this chapter. However, if we wish to fool others, or maintain our innocence in
their eyes, we should try to remain relaxed thereby giving off few or no negative cues.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Verbal And Paraverbal Cues

At times verbal and paraverbal cues betray the liar and these are cues tied directly to the words in
which they speak. Although they fall outside the realm of body language at large, they do complete this
chapter with regards to cues associated with deception which is why they have been included. These
cues are, as always, related to the stress of fibbing so can be confused with nervousness of any other
source. Some however are the direct consequences of lying such as the telling of an implausible story
or using more negative comments or statements, which has been shown to increase during lying.

Here are the cues to deception as they relate to our verbal dialogue: Vocal tension, hectic speech,
faltering speech, improper structure or grammar, implausible story, inconsistent story, superfluous
details, describing feelings rather than events such as “I felt this way when I did this” or “I must have
felt this way because of this” etc, adding qualifying statement such as “This is what I am about to say”
then saying it, word or phrase repetition, using less contractions saying “I did not” instead of “I didn’t”,
using the persons name in sentences instead of saying “he” or “she”, for example “Bill went to the
store” rather than “He went to the store”, the use of clichés, blocking access to information, evasive
responses or desire to change the subject, speech is less compelling, less personal and with less or too
much detail, expressing self doubt, negative complaints or statements, defensiveness or aggressiveness,
changes in pitch (high low or monotone), shaky or soft voice, stuttering, false starts, silent pauses,
filled pauses, delayed response, appearing to be thinking, admitted lack of memory, tentative
construction of sentences, clearing the throat and spontaneous corrections.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Nervous Body Language – The ‘Other’ Cues

As we know nervousness plays a big part in lie detection so we habitually connect the two sentiments.
Therefore, by this nature, we assume that any of the following could be associated with dishonesty.
Here is a nearly comprehensive list of all cues that could be tied to lying or else associated with lying
from the general public. While they don’t necessarily uncover a liar they will be tied to dishonesty and
persons that perform these cues will be mistrusted. They include increased eye blink rate, stuttering,
dilated pupils, fidgeting, appearing unfriendly or tense, facial fidgeting, shaking, postural shifts or
unrelaxed/reserved postures, twitches, shrugs, head movements, playing with objects, sneering,
scowling, frowning, smiling, biting the lower lip, pressing the lips together, wrinkling of the nose,
increase in perspiration, blushing or turning pale and increased swallowing.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

fMRI In Lie Detection

Machines That Detect Lies – When All Else Fails Bring In The Machines

fMRI is the abbreviation for functional magnetic resonance imaging which enables researchers to
create maps of the brain’s networks as it processes thoughts, sensations, memories, and motor

commands. As our brains work, it requires blood to operate and the greater the work done, the more
blood is required. What gives lies away is that certain areas of the brain “light” up through increased
blood flow when lying take place. The job of the fMRI machine is to read this flow and decipher
patterns. Regions of the brain that are used in lying include the anterior (front) cingulated which
functions in process goals and intensions, the right orbital interior frontal which processes reward, and
the right middle frontal that helps govern tasks that require more than just ordinary thought. It is these
three brain centers working in concert that produce and also mask lies.

The fMRI measures blood flow and hence measures which areas of the brain are using up oxygen faster
and are working harder. Proponents of fMRI machines in lie detection claim that if you can get hits in
all three zones of the brain at the same time you can catch liars. In some studies lying has been detected
in upwards of ninety-three percent success rate with the help of fMRI machines. However, the current
methodologies of the study present some very big hurdlers before the machines can use the technology
in lie detection. For example, small movements in the head or speaking aloud can disrupt the scan and
produce unreadable information. The test also requires baseline procedures that compare deceptive
thought patterns and honest thought patterns, both of which can be made troublesome by an
uncooperative participant. The units are also expensive, bulky and require immersion into the unit
which proves to be impractical under most circumstances.

A second more portable device is in creation that uses processes similar to fMRI except that it uses
near-infrared light that pass through the forehead and skull but penetrates only the first few centimeters
of cortical tissue. This also uses blood flow similar to the fMRI. Once it passes through it is captured
by optical sensors and filtered. The unit is formed with a headband studded with LEDs and silicon
diode sensors. Researchers were able to detect lying in a card game ninety-five percent of the time
using these machines.

While blood flow to certain parts of the brain can be excellent predictors of lying, it does no help for us
as human lie detectors since there are no direct body language cues as yet discovered that are tied
directly to brain activity.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Some Other Lie Machines – Thermal Scanners,
Eye Trackers, Pupillometers And Stress Sniffers

Other machines that could potentially find their way into law enforcement and homeland security
include thermal scanners, eye trackers and pupillometers. Scientists at Dodpi or the Department of
defense polygraph institute have created a machine that measures the body’s emissions of heat, light,
vibration and other minute changes that happen during lying. One of the tools measures the amount of
heat that is released just inside each eye. The theory is that heat increase with lying and stress and this
should increase during lying. From this chapter, we know that this machine has severe limitations since
not all liars experience stress and fear, and not all honest people lack it. Another machine tracks
people’s gaze patterns to determine if they’re looking at something they recognize or something novel.
This would be useful in criminal investigations where the murder weapon was kept hidden from the
public. If a suspect was read to recognize the item, he could be linked to the crime. Other machines
measure pupils sizes to determine arousal which as we have been discussing can signal stress, fear, but
also interest. A sniffer machine is also being tested which looks for an increase in stress hormones on
the breath.

Such devices are new and their effectiveness unmeasured so are not in widespread use. Thankfully the
time we hear “Your plane is boarding, please walk through the mental detector” isn’t yet upon us, and
predictions of the popular book 1984 can sit idle, for the time being at least.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

So Which People Are Good At Detecting Lies?

At this point in the chapter it might seem out of place to admit that some individuals can actually detect
lies better than chance, but this is true, and has been backed up empirically through research. Studies
have shown that while the rest of the world is limited to fifty percent, or the same accuracy as that
which would occur by chance, the CIA (central intelligence agency) scores seventy-three percent,
sheriffs sixty-seven percent, psychologist sixty-eight percent whereas the secret service scores sixty-
four percent.

So why do the experts have an advantage over the layman? Well, part of the explanation lies in
experience. The group of psychologist was chosen due to their special interest in lying and lie
detection, not to mention their willingness to participate in a two day seminar covering various topics
related to lying and lie detection. Each group including the psychologists, the CIA, and the secret
service all have an interest in lie detection coupled with the training to back it up. Experts are drawing
on information from many facets about a person, including their paraverbal and nonverbal language as
well as other cues as we have covered which is unlike regular lay-people who have little if any
experience in analyzing people, let alone the ability to repeatedly test their skills. Because lie detection
and reading people is a huge part of their occupations, they get a lot of practice and feedback.

Personality characteristics might also play into the ability to detect lies. For example, empathy,
sensitivity to social cues, and conscientiousness can all help in reading people more accurate because it
allows a person to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Experts are also more aware of the truth
bias, which we covered earlier, and so can properly adjust for this phenomenon. It is important to
conclude on these matters that the accuracy, while impressive in relation to ordinary people, is still far
from perfect. While the experts are far from perfect, they do give us some hope that lie detection is
more than a chance operation. No doubt, by reading this chapter alone, you will be able to make huge
strides in reading others, perhaps not pegging every liar dead on the spot, but the cues in this chapter
will help you at least identified those who are worthy of a second look.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

How We Really Detect Lies

It is traditionally assumed that deception detection occurs simultaneously to the telling of a lie.
Meaning, as people speak, lie detectors were able to pick up on nonverbal and verbal cues to ‘read’
people. Most of the research to date suggests that we can’t use any body language cue, or collection of
cues in a comprehensive manner to read liars, but this might just be a limitation or flaw in the design of
the studies. In 2002 research by Hee Sun Park working out of the University of California in Santa
Barbara it was found that success in real-world lie detection happens gradually, over time and not on
one chance encounter. Her research found that the most often reported method of disseminating lies
included third party information, confessions and physical evidence, none of which the studies thus far

have provided. Therefore, with respect to how people really read lies, the scientific investigations to
date, haven’t provided people with information necessary to accurately detect lies.

Reading lies in real life is an active comparison from information we know for certain, and information
told to us. No doubt, nonverbal language can provide clues to us as a full package, but it doesn’t permit
us to ascertain conclusive evidence. We should therefore use untrustworthy or nervous body language
as motivation to spark further investigation.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

How To Accurately Read Lies

By now we know that liars are practiced, we all do it, and we do it regularly. Sometimes we don’t even
realize we do it and other times those around us don’t care to know. What we do know is that most liars
feel only mild feelings of guilt and fear. Thus, we should only expect very subtle clues to deception and
nothing more. It has been shown through the research that looking for full blown signals of lying is
both misleading and even unhelpful. Liars as it were, are only slightly more apprehensive than truth
tellers with both feeling nervous and anxious when faced with scrutiny.

My advice to read people is to watch for the little stuff, the microexpressions, the small gestures and
the ones that happen instantly, and then hone in on it. Keep in mind too, that you won’t be able to
detect lies much better than about seventy-five percent of the time anyway, which is on par with the
CIA minus of course various lie detection machines which we discussed as being impractical and
requiring cooperation that you are very unlikely to garner, even if provided with access.

The top lie detectors all seem to have one trait in common, and that is skepticism. They know or
assume that someone is lying so they view them through that window being careful to watch and recall
any cues that tip the scales toward deception. Looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses will
lead to rose-coloured predictions about people and this is all just dandy, if you aren’t interesting in
uncovering bad things around you. You also must be aware of a person, from their face to their toes and
be willing to look them over and actively observe them. If you’re goal is to make friends, then by all
means avoid filtering and analyzing the body language around you. In fact, I would advise body
language readers to relax their skills when around family and friends, or at least keep it secret!

It is not safe to immediately peg someone a liar based on one or even a handful of cues just by the
nature of the trade. Reading lying correctly is a long term comparison of the facts seeded with
emotional, fearful and stressed body language from one moment to the next that can only happen over
time. Success will come by looking at the full picture and comparing the parts to the whole and digging
deeper when discrepancies happen between expressive behaviours and the words said. No doubt, lie
detection is difficult, but the body language in this chapter coupled with how it is framed, that is the lie
detection theory and it’s limitations, will help increase your odds significantly.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Comfort and Discomfort In Detecting Deception

By keeping a “subject” relaxed, we can measure lying more accurately. Instead of creating lying-
language through suspicion, we can find out which facts create discomfort – it is discomfort body

language that helps uncover the truth.

Ex-FBI agent Joe Navarro explain in his book What everybody is saying that nonverbal cues put out by
the limbic mind are paramount to detecting deception. He says that it is the displays of comfort versus
discomfort that tells body language readers when someone is telling the truth or lying. When people lie
they experience discomfort and “guilt knowledge” which leaks through the body through a person’s
fear response, but when they tell the truth they “have no worries.” This approach says that a person
uses more emphatic gestures with their hands and arms when they tell the truth, but when they lie they
tend to freeze up and lock themselves down. If you see half-hazard attempts to describe events using
lack of emphasis and gesturing, or in other words, remain uncommitted, than you can be pretty sure
their story is fabricated. Truth tellers try their best to set facts straight and will go on at lengths to
accomplish this.

The theory says that someone that is guilty carries negative thoughts with them because by nature,
people are honest and think that they are good people. When they harbour bad thoughts though, they
find it difficult to achieve comfort. The technique to reading lying as outlined states that a person must
be read in low stress environments so that it is possible to measure changes from their baseline to catch
stress related discomfort. Grilling someone for the truth has been show to produce “false positives”,
meaning people who are actually innocent will actually plead guilty. Innocent suspects have been
shown to confess to very serious crimes such as murder simply because they were put under very
intense pressure. This is why it is important to establish comfort during all interactions, yet use
appropriate questions to uncover the truth.

Overlooking someone suspiciously or presenting leading or accusatory questions will create
discomfort, however it won’t show you which information presented leads to changes in nonverbal
body language. It is by using relaxed and rapport building body language that allows someone to relax
leaving only the information or question to be the variable by which all body language is measured.
When scientists conduct research they do their best to keep all factors the same except for one. They
call this the dependent variable, and it is by definition what is measured, or in other words what is
affected during the experiment. The independent variable is what is manipulated in an experiment.
When conducting a “lying experiment”, like all experiments, you want to keep all other variables
constant so you can measure one variable against another variable.

Therefore, when we want to uncover lies, we should keep our body language neutral and remain calm
while working to present information, details, asking for clarification, and so forth to uncover
discomfort. This is why torture techniques don’t work to uncover the truth, they just pull information
that the suspect believes the interviewer desires so they will stop badgering them. Just by using
suspicious body language or leading questions can put someone on edge and influence their nonverbal
communication. Saying things like “I don’t believe you” or “I think you are lying” will create anxious
body language which can be misconstrued to be the result of actually being dishonest, when in actual
fact is likely due to stress from being mislabeled. To body language reader will gain no useful
information from creating anxiety. The rule of thumb therefore is to create and maintain comfort at all
times, remain neutral in expression and measure signals of discomfort to uncover information that
creates stress.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Comfort and Discomfort Body Language

Comfort on the left side of the image, discomfort on the right.
We have covered many signals of comfort and discomfort throughout the book and have even eluded to
their use in lie detection. To simplify things, I wanted to take the time to cover the cues we can use to
detect lying as it relates to comfort and discomfort. We have seen how open and closed language can
signal a desire to allow access to the body. Ventral displays shows that a person is open and trusting of
someone and this sort of response is difficult when we feel we are hiding emotions. Comfort is
displayed through proximity and people do this by moving their torsos closer or leaning inward rather
than away and will remove objects that impede their view so as to establish more intimacy.

Comfortable bodies open up and spread out.
Comfortable people will hold their bodies loose rather than rigid, and their body will move with
fluidity. They will gesture with their speech instead of freezing instantly or awkwardly, called “flash
frozen.” Sometimes people will slow to catch their thoughts, but this will be obvious to the body
language reader and will come at appropriate times and in context when thought is actually required to
produce accurate answers. Comfortable people mirror others around them instead of avoiding
synchrony. Their breath rate will be similar and they will adopt like postures instead of showing

differences.
Bodies show discomfort by increased heart rate, breath rate, sweating, a change in normal colour in the
face or neck, trembling or shaking in the hands lips, or elsewhere, compressing the lips, fidgeting,
drumming the fingers and other repetitive behaviours. Voices often crack when under stress, mouths
might dry up producing noticeable swallowing, “hard swallows”, or frequent throat clearing. Liars
might use objects as barriers. They might hold drinking glasses to hide parts of their face or use walls
and chairs while standing to lean against to gain support. Liars might engage in eye blocking
behaviours by covering their eyes with their hands or seem to talk through them or even squint so as to
impede what is being said from entering their minds. The eyes might also begin to flutter or increase in
overall blink rate showing an internal struggle.

Drumming fingers, fidgeting, kicking feet and so forth are burning off nervous energy – discomfort.
We’ve hit on the fact that stress creates nonverbal language such as preening to show detachment from
a conversation (picking lint), energy displacement gestures such as scratching the body or rubbing the
neck or wiping the side of the nose. Palm up displays show that a person has some doubt, and indicates
a desire for other to believe them while palm down displays show confidence and authority.
Microexpressions can also be particularly revealing since they happen instantaneously and
subconsciously. Watch for movements that happen first especially if they are negative in nature as these
are more honest than positive body language. Positive language is used by people to appear more in
control and polite instead of appearing vulnerable. Fake smiles are an excellent example of an
expression that can sometimes be put on to appear to disguise stress. We know smiles are faked when
they seem to last for much longer than what would be considered natural.
Lack of touching, or touch reduction also signals discomfort and a divergence of ideas. When people’s
ideas differ they find it hard to come close to others as part of the natural fear response. Head
movements that are inconsistent with speech such as slightly nodding affirmatively though making a
denial or vice versa, or delaying head nodding until after speech is made such that speech and gestures
lack synchrony can give liars away. When gestures are done out of sync they tell us that a person is
adding the gesture on as support for their statement. The entire affair appears to be out of the normal
order of flow in communication which liars can often do. When affirmative nodding happens during

denial statements such as nodding “yes” while saying “I did not do it” usually happens very subtly, but
is obvious to the conscious observer. Keep in mind while reading these cues that they do not indicate
lying per se, but rather indicate discomfort and stress. The job of the body language reader is to decide
why a person is stressed. Are they stressed because they are being put on the spot, because they fear
being mislabeled, or because they are actually telling lies?

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Setting Someone Up To Be Read

The following is a sequence by which lying can be more effectively read as outlined by Joe Navarro in
his book What everybody is saying. Navarro follows a more interrogative style which will work in
some circumstances, but it limited in others.

When trying to read someone for truth-telling, have an open view of their body to be able to see any
signs of comfort and discomfort as they may arise.

1. Get a clear unobstructed view of the person you wish to read so you don’t miss any pacifying
behaviours. If possible put people in an open space.
2. Expect some nervous and stressful body language especially pacifying behaviours. People are
expected to calm themselves at all times even when no lying is being done.
3. Expect initial nervousness. When someone is questioned they will feel tension regardless of their

level of guilt.
4. If possible have the person you wish to read to first relax. With time everyone relaxes, even guilty
people so if you can put off asking important questions or build rapport, do so.
5. Look to establish a baseline. This is especially important if you don’t know the person you are
questioning all that well. Look for cues they use normally especially mannerisms and pacifiers.
6. As you begin questioning, watch for an increased use of pacifiers. This will be especially telling
when they seem to increase dramatically during specific questions or when certain topics arise. When
they arise, it will provide clues as to which information requires further investigation.
7. Pause frequently after asking questions. It is important to avoid putting out too many questions all at
once because it will only serve to create stress. Give the person you are trying to read enough time to
think and answer questions so as to avoid false positives.
8. Stay on task and maintain focus. When people feel stress they often want to change the subject
matter or avoid questions. If a person gets the opportunity to change the subject their will emit fewer
nonverbal tells of deception because when people speak they get to choose and control the topic.
9. Chatter is not truth. Listening to one side of the story often produces a bias and on the surface, the
more we listen to people, the more we tend to trust and believe what they tell us. Advertising
campaigns work through a similar mechanism as the more we hear the message, the more we think it to
be true. Eventually, if we hear messages enough time, they work into our subconsciousness to become
“ours”, they re-write our reality. When people present a huge amount of information about a topic, they
appear to be telling the truth, however this is not always the case as even creative liars can go at lengths
to produce elaborate and believable lies. It is not the amount of information provided that matters, but
rather the accuracy of the information which can only come through verification of the facts.
10. Stress in and stress out. There are two times when stressful nonverbals are emitted, once when the
question is asked which can appear like distancing behaviours such as arms and foot withdrawl and
then again when pacifying is needed to calm. These come out as neck touching, stroking the hair and so
forth.
11. Isolate the cause of stress. Is stress due to being asked stressful questions, or because someone is
being interrogated. Not all stressful nonverbal language is due to lying and often people that are honest,
show nervous language.
12. Pacifiers tell us a lot. Pacifying body language tells us when someone is stressed which tells us
which scenarios, questions or information has created it. It therefore follows that pacifying cues tell us
which areas require more thorough investigation.

Chapter 16 - Deception and Lie Detection

Summary – Chapter 16

We began this chapter knowing full well that lie detection through nonverbal means was difficult at
best. However, we did cover a huge amount of clues that can help us by raising suspicion and provide
us with leads to delve further. We began the chapter by looking at the reasons for lying which includes
hiding feelings, preferences and attitudes. We found that lying is used to reduce disagreements and hurt
feelings and is a useful skill in impression management. We listed the nine reasons people lie which are
to avoid punishment, to gain access to a reward, to protect another person or one’s self from being
punished, to win admiration of others, to avoid awkward social situations, to avoid embarrassment, to
maintain privacy and to gain at the expense of others.

We found that by grilling someone for the truth it is often enough to cause someone to feel stress

thereby creating the behaviour instead of uncovering it. Contrary to popular belief we discussed that
eye contact can often increase during lying rather than decrease due to “duping delight” where a person
receives a charge from pulling one over on someone else. We learned that lying is hard work so should
expect that when someone is caught with difficult questions that they should exhibit more nonverbal
leakage and might even ‘appear’ to be thinking harder. Nervousness and guilt was touched on which
showed that at times liars can give themselves up through a higher pitch, faster and louder speech,
speech errors or stuttering, blushing, an increase in blink rate, fidgeting, dilation of the pupils or
sweating, but that these cues only reveal liars that actually feel guilt, and not all do. Liars can also tend
to “freeze up” and reduce movement and we related it back to professional poker players. Next we
looked at how liars remain uncommitted to their lies, and thereby use less exuberant gesturing, and can
stop or reduce touching when they lie.

Next we looked at the “truth bias” which shows that an average of sixty-seven percent accuracy is
found when detecting the truth, whereas forty-four percent is found while detecting deception because
people expect to be told the truth so have adapted to detect it. We found in this chapter that truth tellers
(and liars) are sometimes less cooperative, but not always, and looked at the FACT or the facial action
coding system as another way to detect lies. “Microexpressions” were defined as facial expressions that
flash across the face in 1/25 to 1/5 of a second and can betray liars because they are difficult to
consciously control and appear more honest. We discussed that while lying requires fabrication, telling
the truth can be just as difficult since details must be recalled from memory. Police officers, we found,
are fairly good at detecting lies, but this is in spite of what they are taught rather than because of it.
Lying language in children was discussed and then we classified the major gestures that are usually
associated with lying, but that aren’t always actually indicative of it. Our aim in doing so was to avoid
doing them so we can avoid being mislabeled as untruthful by others. These commonly associated
gestures include touching the face and ears, scratching the neck, pulling at the collar, touching the eyes,
mouth, or nose and closed body language. We also examined eye patterns in lying, verbal and
paraverbal cues and nervous body language as they relate to lying. We discovered that machines such
as the fMRI, thermal scanners, eye trackers, pupillometers and stress sniffers had a much greater
success rate when compared to people, but were also expensive and impractical.

We finished up the chapter by examining true success which is achieved by the experts; the CIA who
scores seventy-three percent, sheriffs sixty-seven percent, psychologist sixty-eight percent and the
secret service who scored sixty-four percent as well as techniques for actually detecting lies by
comparing the baseline of a person as they shift from comfort to discomfort based on questioning or
other stimulus.

Final Thoughts

Final Thoughts

by Chris Site Author • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Final? There’s no end to the constant flow of research on Body Language and how amazing our Brains
are… Stay tuned for more, and visit our Articles section of the site for the newest research.

This is the public content.

This is the private content. You can change the level to match whatever level should have access to the

info.

This is public info after the private info.

Cheers,
Chris

References

References

by Chris Site Author • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Resources And References
This website is a product of more than just my own opinion; it is the result of the synthesis of
hundreds of sources. I am a nerd for primary research and hack and analyze the research into a
format that is more practical and user-friendly. By reading through Body Language Project, you
will gain the most useful and practical information derived from the resources listed below.
I am grateful for the contributions that these scientists have made toward the study of nonverbal
communication and nonverbal behaviour: body language.
-A-
Abe, N., M. Suzuki, E. Mori, M. Itoh, and T. Fujii. 2007. Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of
the prefrontal cortex and amygdale in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience 19: 287-295.
Adolphs, Ralph A. 2006. Landmark study finds that when we look at sad faces, the size of the pupil we
look at influences the size of our own pupil Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 1(1): 3-4
Akehurst, L., G. Kohnken, A. Vrij, and R. Bull. 1996. Lay persons’ and police officers’
beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: 461-471.
Aiello, J. 1977. A further look at equilibrium theory. Visual interaction as a function of
interpersonal distance. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior, 1: 122-140.
Andrea Kleinsmith P. Ravindra De Silva Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2006. Cross-cultural differences in
recognizing affect from body posture. Source: Interacting with computers. 18 (6): 1371 -1389
Ashton-James, C., R. B. van Baaren, T. L. Chartrand, J. Decety, and J. Karremans. 2007. Mimicry and
me: the impact of mimicry on self-construal. Social Cognition 25 (4): 518-535.
Appelbaum, P.S. The new lie detectors: Neuroscience, deception, and the courts. Psychiatric Services.
2007. 58: 460-462.
Argyle, M. 1988. Bodily communication (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
Argyle, Michael; Lefebvre, Luc; Cook, Mark 1974. The meaning of five patterns of gaze.
European Journal of Social Psychology. 4(2): 125-136.
Argyle, M., and Ingham, R. 1972. Gaze, mutual gaze, and proximity. Semiotica, 1, 32–49.

Argyle, M. The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. London: Penguin Books, 1967.

Argyle, M. and Cook, M. Gaze and Mutual Gaze. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Anat Rafaeli; Jane Dutton; Celia V Harquail; Stephanie Mackie-Lewis. Navigating by attire: The use of
dress by female administrative employees. Academy of management journal. 1997. 40 (1): 9-45.

Allan Mazur; Eugene Rosa; Mark Faupel; Joshua Heller; Russell Leen; Blake Thurman. Physiological
Aspects of Communication Via Mutual Gaze. The American Journal of Sociology. 1980; 86(1): 50-74.

Aziz-Zadeh L, Iacoboni M, Zaidel E, Wilson S, Mazziotta J. 2004. Left hemisphere motor facilitation
in response to manual action sounds. European Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (9): 2609–2612.

-B-

Barber N. 1995. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human
morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 395-424.

Buss, D. M. 1988. The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 616-628.

Benedict, M. E., and J. Hoag. 2004. Seating location in large lectures: are seating preferences or
location related to course performance? Journal of Economic Education 35 (3): 215.

Buss, D.M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 1-49.

Breed, G., Christiansen, E., & Larson, D. 1972. Effect of lecturer’s gaze direction upon
teaching effectiveness. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2: 115.

Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J., Redmond, M.V. 2008. Interpersonal Communication: 5th Edition. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.

Bailenson, J. N. & Yee, N. 2005. Digital Chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in
immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16: 814-819.

Bailenson, J.N. & Yee, N. (in press). Virtual interpersonal touch: Haptic interaction and copresence in
collaborative virtual environments. International Journal of Multimedia Tools and Applications.

Becker, F. D., R. Sommer, J. Bee, and B. Oxley. 1973. College classroom ecology. Sociometry 36 (4):
514-525.

Beatrice de Gelder. 2006. Towards the neurobiology of emotional body language. Source: Nature
reviews. Neuroscience. 7 (3): 242 -249.

Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bard, Kim A; Myowa-Yamakoshi, Masako; Tomonaga, Masaki; Tanaka, Masayuki; Costall, Alan;
Matsuzawa, Tetsuro. 2005. Group Differences in the Mutual Gaze of Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes).
Developmental Psychology. 41(4): 616-624.

Brooks, C. I., Church, M. A., & Fraser, L. 1986. Effects of duration of eye contact on judgments of
personality characteristics. Journal of Social Psychology. 126: 71–78.

Bradley, Margaret M; Codispoti, Maurizio; Sabatinelli, Dean; Lang, Peter J. 2001. Emotion and
motivation II: Sex differences in picture processing Emotion. 1(3): 300-319

Brandt, David R. 1980. A systemic approach to the measurement of dominance in human face-to-face
interaction Source: Communication quarterly. 28 (1):31-43.

Bressler, Eric R.; Balshine, Sigal 2006. The influence of humor on desirability.

Evolution and Human Behavior. 27(1): 29-39.

Bressler, E.R.; Martin, R.A.; Balshine, S. 2006. Evolution and Human Behavior. Production and
appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. 27 (2):

Blairy, S., P. Herrera, and U. Hess. 1999. Mimicry and the judgment of emotional facial expressions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 23 (1): 5-41.

Burgress R. and C. Baldassarre. 2006. Ultimate guide to poker tells: devastate opponents by reading
body language, table talk, chip moves, and much more. Chicago, Triumph Books.

Brown, Clifford E.; Dovidio, John F.; Ellyson, Steve L. 1990. Reducing Sex Differences in Visual
Displays of Dominance: Knowledge is Power. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin. 16(2): 358-
368.

Burg, A. 1968. Lateral visual field as related to age and sex. Journal of Applied Psychology. 52: 10–15.

Brockner, J; B. Pressman, J. Cabitt and P. Moran. 1982. Nonverbal intimacy, sex, and compliance: A
field study, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 6: 253–258.

Barry, Patrick L., 2007. Talk to the Hand. Science News. 171 (18):

Bohm. 1997. Effects of interpersonal touch, degree of justification, and sex of participant on
compliance with a request. The Journal of social psychology. 137: 460-469.

-C-

Cashdan, E. 1993. Attracting mates: Effects of paternal investment on mate attraction strategies.
Ethology and Sociobiology 14: 1-24.

Cameron C., S. Oskamp, and W. Sparks. 1978. Courtship American style: newspaper advertisements.
Family Coordinator 26: 27-30.

Caso, L., A. Gnisci, A. Vrij, and S. Mann. 2005. Processes underlying deception: an empirical analysis
of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender
Profiling 2 (3): 195-202.

Cook, Mark. 1970. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human Relations 23 (1): 61-76.

Cooper, L. 1976. Mirroring: One vehicle to organizational clarity. International Journal Of Social
Psychiatry 22 (4): 288-295.

Chowdhary, U. 1988. Instructor’s attire as a biasing factor in students’ ratings of an instructor. Clothing
& Textiles Research Journal 6 (2): 17-22.

Chartrand, T. L. and V. Jefferis. 2003. Consequences of automatic goal pursuit and the case of
nonconscious mimicry. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams and W. von Hippel (Eds.) Responding to the
social world: implicit and explicit processes in social judgments and decisions (290-305). Philadelphia,
Psychological Press.

Chartrand, T. L. and J. A. Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 893-910.

Cahoon, DD; Edmonds, EM 1989. Male-Female Estimates Of Opposite-Sex 1st Impressions
Concerning Females Clothing Styles Bulletin of the psychonomic society. 27(3): 280-281.

Chaplin William F.; Phillips Jeffrey B; Brown Jonathan D.; Clanton Nancy R.; Stein Jennifer L.; 2000.
Handshaking, gender, personality, and first impressions Journal of personality and social psychology.
79(1): 110-117.

Coreen Farris; Teresa A. Treat; Richard J. Viken; and Richard M. McFall. 2008. Perceptual
Mechanisms That Characterize Gender Differences in Decoding Women’s Sexual Intent Psychological
Science. 19(4):

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. 1995. Their
ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in the
cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68: 261–279.

Cunningham, M. R. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasiexperiments on the
sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50: 925–935.

Carney, Dana R.; Hall, Judith A. LeBeau, Lavonia Smith Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of
social power Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2005. 29(2):105.

Chang, Yanrong 2006. Nonverbal Communication in Friends.. Communication Teacher, 20(4): 97-99.

Carroll E. 1994. Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-
cultural research Izard, Psychological Bulletin. 115(2): 288-299.

Clements, A. M.; Rimrodt, S. L.; Abel, J. R.; Blankner, J. G.; Mostofsky, S. H.; Pekar, J. J.; Denckla,
M. B.; Cutting, L. E. Sex Differences in Cerebral Laterality of Language and Visuospatial Processing.
Brain and Language. 2006. 98 (2): 150-158.

Crusco, A. and C. Wetzel. 1984. The midas touch: the effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant
tipping, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10: 512–517.

-D-

Daniel, R. 1992. An effect of seating location on course achievement: Comment on Brooks and Rebeta.
Environment and Behavior 24(3): 396-399.

Daigen, V. and J. G. Holmes. 2000. Don’t interrupt! A good rule for marriage. Personal Relationships 7
(2): 185-201.

Davidson, R. J. & Irwin, W. 1999. The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends
Cogn. Sci. 3: 11–21.

Davis 1978. Camera Eye-Contact by the Candidates in the Presidential Debates of 1976 Source: The
journalism quarterly. 55 (3): 431 -437.

Darwin, C. 1965. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. (Original work published 1872)

David Lambert. 2008. Body Language 101. Skyhorse publishing. New York, NY.
Denise Dellarosa Cummins. 1996. Dominance Hierarchies and the Evolution of Human Reasoning.
Minds and machines. 6 (4): 463-480.

DePaulo, B. M., J. J. Lindsay, B. E. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper. 2003. Cues
to deception. Psychological Bulletin 129: 74-118.

DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 74: 63–79.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in
everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70: 979–995.

Dindia, K. 1987. The effects of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human

Communication Research. 13 (3): 345-371.

Dimitrus, J. and M. Mazzerella. 1998. Reading people: how to understand people and predict their
behavior – anytime, anyplace. New York, Random House.

Davidio, F.M. Brown C.E. Heltman, K. Ellyson, S.L. and Keating, C.F. 1988. Power Displays between
Women and Men in Discussion of Gender-linked Tasks: A Multichannel Study, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 55: 580-7.

Duncan, W.J., Smeltzer, L.R. & Leap, T.L. Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to
management. Journal of Management, 1990. 16: 255–78.

Duncan, S. Jr. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 23(2): 283-292.

Desmond Morris. Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language. Published 2002 by
Vintage

Dovidio JF, Ellyson SL, Keating CF, Heltman K, Brown CE. 1988. The relationship of social power to
visual displays of dominance between men and women. Source: Journal of personality and social
psychology. 54: 233-42.

Dilts, R.B., Grinder, J., Bandler, R., & DeLozier, J. 1979. Neuro-linguistic programming L Cupertino,
CA: Meta Publications.

Doohan, E. 2007. Listening behaviors of married couples: An exploration of nonverbal presentation to
a relational outsider. International Journal of Listening, 21 (1): 24-41.

Danielle Jackson, Erika Engstrom and Tara Emmers-Sommer. 2007. Think Leader, Think Male and
Female: Sex vs. Seating Arrangement as Leadership Cues. Sex Roles. 57 (9/10): 713-723.

-E-

Elaad, E. 2003. Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated
ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17(3): 349-363.

Edelstein, R. S., T. L. Luten, P. Ekman, and G. S. Goodman. 2006. Detecting lies in children and adults.
Law and Human Behavior 30(1): 1-10.

Edmonds, Ed M.; Cahoon, Delwin D.; Hudson, Elizabeth 1992. Male-female estimates of feminine
assertiveness related to females’ clothing styles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 30(2): 43-144.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989. Human ethology. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ekman, Paul and W. Friesen. 1969. “The repertoire of nonverbal behavior. Categories, origins, usage,
and coding.” Semiotica (1): 49-98.

Ekman, Paul. 1994. Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell’s mistaken
critique Psychological Bulletin. 115(2): 268-287.

Ekman, Paul. 1986. A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion. Source: Motivation and Emotion
Ekman. 10(2): 159-168.

Ekman, Paul and Friesen, W. V. 1987. Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial
expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53(4): 712-717.

Ekman. 1982. Felt, false, and miserable smiles. Journal of nonverbal behavior. 6(4): 238-258.

Ekman, Paul; Friesen, Wallace V. 1974. Detecting deception from the body or face
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 29(3): 288-298.

Ekman, Paul; Friesen, Wallace V. 1971. Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 17(2): 124-129.

Ekman, Paul. 1972. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971. 19: 207-282. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ekman, Paul. 1996. Why Don’t We Catch Liars? 63(3):

Ekman, Paul; O’Sullivan, Maureen. 1991. Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist. Vol 46(9):
913-920.

Ekman, Paul; Davidson, Richard J and Friesen, Wallace V. 1990. The Duchenne smile: Emotional
expression and brain physiology: II . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58(2): 342-353.

Estow, S., J. P. Jamieson, and J. R. Yates. 2007. Self-monitoring and mimicry of positive and negative
social behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2): 425-433.

Ellsworth, Phoebe; Carlsmith, J Merrill. 1973. Eye contact and gaze aversion in an aggressive
encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 28(2): 280-292.

Eric Berne. Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis. Ballantine Books.
1996.

-F-

Firestone, Shulamith. 1977. The dialectic of sex: the case for feminist revolution. London: Cape.

Foddy, Margaret 1978. Patterns of Gaze in Cooperative and Competitive Negotiation
Human Relations. 31(11):925-938.

Fugita, Stephen S.; Hogrebe, Mark C.; Wexley, Kenneth N. 1980. Perceptions of Deception: Perceived
Expertise in Detecting Deception, Successfulness of Deception and Nonverbal Cues. Personality And
Social Psychology Bulletin. 6(4): 637-643.

Forsythe, S., M. F. Drake, and C. E. Cox. 1985. Influence of applicant’s dress on interviewer’s
selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (2): 374-378.

Forsythe, S. M. 1990. Effect of applicant’s clothing on interviewer’s decision to hire.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20 (19, 1): 1579-1595.

Forsythe, S. M., M. F. Drake, and C. A. Cox Jr. 1984. Dress as an influence on the perceptions of
management characteristics in women. Home Economics Research Journal 13 (2): 112-121

Forgas. J.P., O’Connor, K.V., and Morris, S.L. 1983. Smile and punishment: The effect of facial
expression on responsibility attribution by groups and individuals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 9: 587-596.

Fulcher, J. S. “Voluntary” facial expression in blind and seeing children. Archives of Psychology, 1942.
38: 272.

Frank, M.G; Ekman, P; Friesen, W. V. 1993. Behavior markers and reconcilability of the smile of
enjoyment. Journal of personality and social sychology. 64 (1): 83-93.

Friesen, W. V. 1972. Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An experimental test
of the concept of display rules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San
Francisco.

Field, T. 2001. Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fatt, J. P. T. 1998. Nonverbal Communication and Business Success. Management Research News

21(4): 1-10.

Frank M.G. and Ekman P. 1997. The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-
stake lies. Source: Journal of personality and social psychology. 72: 1429 -39

Fisher, J; Rytting, M and Heslin, R. 1976. Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects on
interpersonal touch, Sociometry 39: 416–421.

-G-

Gangestad, S. W., J. A. Simpson, A. J. Cousins, C. E. Garver-Apgar, and P. N. Christensen. 2004.
Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological
Science 15: 203-207.

Gangestad, S. W., R. Thornhill, and C. E. Garver-Apgar. 2005. Adaptations to ovulation: implications
for sexual and social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14 (6): 312-316.

Gangestad, S.W., Thornhill, R., Garver, C., 2002. Changes in women’s sexual interests and their
partners’ mate retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest.
Proc. R. Soc. London, B 269: 975–982.

Gangestad, S.W., Thornhill, R., Garver-Apgar, C.E., 2005a. Adaptations to ovulation. In: Buss, D.M.
(Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 344–371.

Gangestad, S.W., Thornhill, R., Garver-Apgar, C.E., 2005b. Women’s sexual interests across the
ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner fluctuating asymmetry. Proc. R. Soc. London, B 272: 2023–
2027.

Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. & Rizzolatti, G., 1996. Action recognition in the premotor cortex.
Brain, 119: 593-609.

Gallese, V. & Goldman, A., (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences. 12: 493-501.

Gordon, A. K. and A. G. Miller. 2000. Perspective differences in the construal of lies: is deception in
the eye of the beholder? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26 (1): 46-55.

Gurung, R. A. R. and C. J. Chrouser. 2007. Predicting objectification: do provocative clothing and
observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 57 (1-2): 91-99.

Greenberg, J. 1976. The role of seating position in group interaction: a review, with applications for
group trainers. Group & Organization Management 1 (3): 310-327.

Gregory H. and M. Karinch. 2007. I can read you like a book: how to spot the messages and emotions
people are really sending with their body language. Franklin Lakes, Career Press.

Grammer, K., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1990. The ritualisation of laughter. In W. Koch (Ed.), Naturalichkeit
der Sprache un der Kultur: Acta colloquii 192–214.

Grimshaw, Gina M.; Bulman-Fleming, M. Barbara; Ngo, Cam 2004. A signal-detection analysis of sex
differences in the perception of emotional faces. Brain and Cognition. Vol 54(3): 248-250.

Gilliam, Harold V. B.; Van Den Berg, Sjef. 1980. Different Levels of Eye Contact: Effects on Black and
White College Students. Urban Education. 15 (1): 83-92.

Grinder, J., DeLozier, J. and Bandler, R., 1977 Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.
Erickson, M.D. Vol. II

Goldman. 1980. Effect of Eye Contact and Distance on the Verbal Reinforcement of Attitude. The

Journal of social psychology 111(1): 73 -78.

Greene 1979. Title: Need-Fulfillment and Consistency Theory: Relationships Between Self-Esteem and
Eye Contact. Source: Western journal of speech communication. 43(2): 123 -133.

Galin, D. and Ornstein, R., 1974. Individual Differences in Cognitive Style – Reflective Eye
Movements; Neuropsychologia, 12: 376-397.

Guéguen, N. and C. Jacob, 2005. The Effect of touch on tipping: an evaluation in a French’s bar,
International Journal of Hospitality Management 24: 295–299.

Guéguen, N and C. Jacob 2006, Touch and consumer behavior: A new experimental evidence in a field
setting, International Journal of Management 23: 24–33.

Graziano, Michael S.A. Cooke, Daylan, F. 2006. Pariieto-frontal Interactions, Personal Space, and
Defensive Behavior. Neuropsychologia. 44: 845-59.

Glenn E. Weisfeld and Jody M. Beresford. 1982. Erectness of posture as an indicator of dominance or
success in humans. Motivation and Emotion. 6(2):113 -131.

-H-

Hall. J.A. 1978. Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85: 845-857.

Hall. J.A. 1984. Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hall, J. A. 2006.Nonverbal Behavior, Status, and Gender: How Do We Understand Their Relations.
Psychology of Women Quarterly; 30(4): 384-391.

Hall, Edward, T. 1959. The silent language. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, Edward,T.. The Silent Language, Greenwich, CT: Fawcett, 1959.

Hall, Edward, T. The Hidden Dimension, Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1966.

Hamel, R. F (1974). Female subjective and pupillary reactions to nude male and female figures. Journal
of Psychology. 87: 171-175.

Halpern, D. F.; Camilla P. Benbow, David C. Geary, Ruben C. Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde, Morton Ann
Gernsbacher. 2007. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological science
in the public interest. 8(1): 1-51.

Hatch, M.J. 1997 Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management
team. Organization Science. 8: 275–88.

Havlicek, J., S. C. Roberts, and J. Flegr. 2005. Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of
menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters 1(3): 256-259.

Haselton, M. G., M. Mortezaie, E. G. Pillsworth, A. Bleske-rechek, and D. A. Frederick. 2007.
Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones
and Behavior. 51(1): 40-45.

Harper, Robert G., Arthur N. Wiens and Joseph D. Matarazzo. Nonverbal communication: The State of
the Art. Wiley Series on Personality Processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978.

Harrison, Neil A.; Wilson, C. Ellie; Critchley, Hugo D. 2007. Processing of observed pupil size
modulates perception of sadness and predicts empathy. Emotion. 7(4): 724-729.

Henley, N., 1977. “Body Politics: power, sex and nonverbal communication, prentice hall, new jersey.

Hecht, M.A. and LaFrance, M. 1988. License or obligation to smile: The effect of power and gender on
amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 1326-1336.

Hasegawa, T. and K. Sakaguchi. 2006. Person perception through gait information and target choice for
sexual advances: comparison of likely targets in experiments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior 30(2): 63-85.

Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1960). Pupil size as related to the interest value of visual stimuli. Science,
132: 349-350.

Hess, E. H. 1965. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 212 (4): 46–54.

Hess, E. H. 1975. The role of pupil size in communication. Scientific American. 233(5): 110–119.

Hertenstein, Matthew J; Keltner, Dacher; App, Betsy; Bulleit, Brittany A; Jaskolka, Ariane R 2006.
Touch Communicates Distinct Emotions. Emotion. 6(3): 528-533

Hediger, Heini 1955. Studies of the psychology and behaviour of captive animals in zoos and circuses.
Butterworths Scientific Publications

Holdaway, S. Blue jokes: Humour in police work. In C. Powell & G.E.C. Paton (Eds),
Humour in society: Resistance and control. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1988, 106–22.

Hermans, E. J., P. Putman, and J. van Honk. 2006. Testosterone administration reduces empathetic
behavior: a facial mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 31(7): 859-866.

Hensley, W. E. 1982. Professor Proxemics: personality and job demands as factors of faculty office
arrangement. Environment and Behavior 14(5): 581-591.

Hocking. 1985. Eye contact contrast effects in the employment interview. Communication research
reports 2(1): 5-10.

Hornik, J 1992. Tactile stimulation and consumer response, Journal of Consumer Research 19: 449–
458.

Hornik, J.1992. Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior, Marketing
Letters. 49–55.

Howells, L. T. and S. W. Becker. 1962. Seating arrangement and leadership emergence.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(2): 148-150.

-I-

Irwin Silverman, Jean Choi, and Michael Peters. 2007. The hunter-gatherer theory of sex differences in
spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36 (2): 261-268.

-J-

James A. Coan; Hillary S, Schaefer; and Richard J. Davidson. 2006. Lending a Hand. Social
Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat. Association for Psychological Science

Jardin, R., and Martin, N. G. 1983. Spatial ability and throwing accuracy. Behavior Genetics. 13: 331–
340.

Janisse, Michel Pierre. 1973. Pupil Size and Affect: A Critical Review of the Literature Since 1960.
Canadian Psychologist Psychologie Canadienne. 14(4): 311-329.

James A. Russell, Naoto Suzuki and Noriko Ishida. 1993. Canadian, Greek, and Japanese freely
produced emotion labels for facial expressions. Motivation and Emotion. 17(4): 337 -351

Jeffrey D. Fisher; Marvin Rytting; Richard Heslin. 1976. Hands Touching Hands: Affective and

Evaluative Effects of an Interpersonal Touch. Sociometry, 39(4): 416-421.

Julius F. 1977. The body language of sex, power, and aggression. New York, M. Evans and Company
Inc.

Joe Navarro. 2008. What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Speed-Reading People.
William Morrow Paperbacks.

John F. Dpvidio, Karen Heltman, Clifford E. Brown, Steve L. Ellyson, Caroline F. Keating. 1988.
Power Displays Between Women and Men in Discussions of Gender-

Joseph, R. 2000. The evolution of sex differences in language, sexuality, and visual-spatial skills.
Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29(1): 35-66.

-K-

Kansaku, K., & Kitazawa, S. 2001. Imaging studies on sex divergences in the lateralization of
language. Neuroscience Research. 41: 333–337.

Kaufman, D. and J. Mahoney. 1999 The effect of waitresses’ touch on alcohol consumption in dyads,
The Journal of Social Psychology 139: 261–267.

Kawakami, Kiyobumi; Takai-Kawakami, Kiyoko; Tomonaga, Masaki; Suzuki, Juri; Kusaka, Tomiyo;
Okai, Takashi. 2006. Origins of smile and laughter: a preliminary study. Early Human Development. 82
(1): 61.

Keltner, Dacher; Bonanno, George A. 1997. A study of laughter and dissociation: Distinct correlates of
laughter and smiling during bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73(4): 687-
702.

Kellerman. 1989. Looking and loving: The effects of mutual gaze on feelings of romantic love. Journal
of Research in Personality. 23(2): 145-161.

Keltner, D., Ekman, P., 2003. Expression of emotion. In: Davidson, R., Scherer, K., Goldsmith, H.
(Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York, 411–414.

Kelly, Janice R.; Murphy, Julie D.; Craig, Traci Y.; Driscoll, Denise M. 2005. The Effect of Nonverbal
Behaviors Associated with Sexual Harassment Proclivity on Women’s Performance Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 53(9-10): 689-701.

Kendon, A. Some Functions of Gaze Direction in Social Interaction. Acta Psychologica. 1967. 32: 1-
25.

Kendon, A. 1994. Do gestures communicate? A review. Research on Language and Social Intraction.
27(3): 175-200.

Klineberg, O. 1938. Emotional expression in Chinese literature. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 33: 517-520.

Klineberg, O. 1940. Social psychology. New York: Holt.

Kolakowski, D., & Malina, R. M. 1974. Spatial ability, throwing accuracy and man’s hunting heritage.
Nature. 251: 410–412.

Krumhuber, E., & Kappas, A. (2005). Moving smiles: The role of dynamic components for the
perception of the genuineness of smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 29: 3-24.

Kinsbourne, M., 1972. Eye and Head Turning Indicates Cerebral Lateralization; Science, 179: 539-541.

Kocel, K., et al.,1972. Lateral Eye Movement and Cognitive Mode; Psychon Sci. 27: 223-224.

Knackstedt, G., & Kleinke, C. L. (1991). Eye contact, gender, and personality judgments. Journal of
Social Psychology, 131: 303-304.

Konopacki 1987. Eye Movement Betrays a Prospect’s Inner Feelings Source: Marketing news 21(10):
4.

Krumhuber, E ; Manstead, A.S.R; Kappas, A. 2007. Temporal Aspects of Facial Displays in Person and
Expression Perception: The Effects of Smile Dynamics, Head-tilt, and Gender. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior. 31: 39-56.

Krannich, C. R. and R. L. Krannich. 2000. Savvy interviewing. Manassas Par, Impact Publications.

Kneidinger, L. M.; Maple, T. L.; Tross, S. A. 2001. Touching behavior in sport: functional components,
analysis of sex differences, and ethological considerations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(1): 43-
62.

Knapp, Mark. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1992.

Kleinke, C. L. 1980. Interaction between gaze and legitimacy of request on compliance in a field
setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5(1): 3-12.

-L-

LaFrance, Marianne, Hecht, M.A., & Levy Paluck, E 2003. The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of
sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 305-334.

LaFrance, Marianne. 1995. Why smiles generate leniency.; Hecht, Marvin A
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 207-14.

LaFrance, Marianne 1996. Why do women smile more than men? International Journal of Psychology.
31(3-4): 5042-5042.

LaFrance, Marianne. 2003. The Contingent Smile: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Smiling
Source: Psychological bulletin. 129(2):305-334.

LaFrance, Marianne. 1979. Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: analysis by the cross-lag panel
technique. Social Psychology Quarterly 42: 66-70.

LaFrance, Marianne. 1982. Posture mirroring and rapport. In M. Davis (Ed.) Interaction rhythms:
periodicity in communicative behavior (279-298). New York, Human Sciences Press, Inc.

LaFrance, Marianne. and W. Ickes. 1981. Posture mirroring and interactional involvement: sex and sex
typing effects. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5: 139-154.

LaFrance, Marianne 2002. Smile Boycotts and Other Body Politics, Feminism & Psychology. 12
(3):319-323.

Lafrance, Marianne. Smile Boycotts and Other Body Politics. Feminism & Psychology. 2002. 12(3):
319-323.

Lakin, J. L., and T. L. Chartrand. 2003. Using non-conscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation
and rapport. Psychological Science 14 (4): 334-339.

Lakin, J. L. 2003. The chameleon effect as social glue: evidence for the evolutionary significance of
non-conscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27 (3): 145-162.

Lawson, Willow 2005. Humor’s Sexual Side. Psychology Today. New York. 38(5): 17-18.

Leeb. 2004. Here’s Looking at You, Kid! A Longitudinal Study of Perceived Gender Differences in

Mutual Gaze Behavior in Young Infants Source: Sex Roles. 50(1-2): 1-14.

Leventhal, G. 1978, Sex and setting effects on seating arrangement. Journal of Psychology. 100: 21-26.

Levine, D. W., E. C. O’neal, S. G. Garwood, and P. J. Mcdonald. 1980. Classroom ecology: the effects
of seating position on grades and participation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6 (3): 409-
412.

Lewis, David. 1999. The Secret Language Of Success. BBS Publishing Corporation.

Lurie, Alison. The Language of Clothes. (New York, 1981), 3-26.

Lott, D. F. and R. Sommer. 1967. Seating arrangements and status. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 7 (1): 90-95.

Lorenz, K. On aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.

Lorenz, K. 1965. Evolution and modification of behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lieberman, Joel D.; Sales, Bruce D. 2007. In-Court Observations of Nonverbal Behavior. Scientific
jury selection. (pp. 125-142). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. ix, 261 pp.

Littlepage, Glenn E.; Whiteside, Harold D. 1983. The “Peripheral Cue Shift” Phenomenon: Influence
of Facial Expression and Level of Commission on Attribution of Responsibility Personality And Social
Psychology Bulletin, 9(2): 261-265.

Lynn et al., 1998 M. Lynn, J.M. Le and D. Sherwyn. 1998. Reach out and touch your customers,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quaterly 39: 60-65.

-M-

MacDonald, C., 2004. A Chuckle a Day Keeps the Doctor Away: Therapeutic Humor & Laughter.
Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 42(3):18-25.

Mann, S., A. Vrij, and R. Bull. 2002. Suspects, lies, and videotape: an analysis of authentic high-stake
liars. Law and Human Behavior 26 (3): 365-376.

Mann, S., A. Vrij, and R. Bull. 2004. Detecting true lies: police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies.
Journal of Applied Psychology 89(1): 137-149.

Maddux, W. W., E. Mullen, and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger
pieces: strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 44(2): 461-468.

Manstead, A. and A. Kappas. 2007. Temporal aspects of facial displays in person and expression
perception: the effects of smile dynamics, head-tilt, and gender. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 31(1):
39-56.

Matsumoto. 1987. Cultural similarities and differences in the semantic dimensions of body postures.
Source: Journal of nonverbal behavior. 11(3):166-179.

Martin, Rod A. 2001. Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research
findings Psychological Bulletin. 127(4): 504-519.

Martin, S.E. 1978. Sexual politics in the workplace: The interactional world of policewomen. Symbolic
Interaction. 1 (2): 44-60.

Martin, David John. 1997. Slaughtering a sacred cow: The eyebrow flash is not a universal social
greeting. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 58(5-B): 2751.

McElroy, J. C., P. C. Morrow, and R. J. Ackerman. 1983. Personality and interior office design:

exploring the accuracy of visitor attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 68 (3): 541-544.

McCaskey, M. B. 1979. The hidden messages managers send. Harvard Business Review, Boston. 57
(6): 135.

McAndrew. 1986. Arousal seeking and the maintenance of mutual gaze in same and mixed sex dyads
Source: Journal of nonverbal behavior. 10(3):168-172.

McGhee, Paul E. 1984 Current American Psychological Research on Humor. Jahrbuche fur
Internationale Germanistik 16(2): 37-57.

McClure, Erin B 2000. A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and
their development in infants, children, and adolescents
Psychological Bulletin. 126(3): 424-453.

McClure, E.B. 2000. A meta- analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and
their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin. 126: 424-453.

Mcguire, Michael T. 1982. Social Dominance Relationships in Male Vervet Monkeys: A Possible
Model for the Study of Dominance Relationships in Human Political Systems.
International Political Science Review. 3(1): 11-32.

Mead, M. 1975. Review of “Darwin and facial expression.” Journal of Communication, 25: 209-213.

Mehrabian, A., Friar, J., 1969. Encoding of attitude by a seated communicator via posture and position
cues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33: 330–336.

Mesquita, B., 2003. Emotions as dynamic cultural phenomena. In: Davidson, R., Scherer, K.,
Goldsmith, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York, 871–890.

Miles, L. and V. Peace. 2006. Implicit behavioral mimicry: investigating the impact of group
membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 30(3): 97-113.

Morrison, K., M. Ferrara, H. S. Park, T. R. Levine, and S. A. McCornack. 2002. How people really
detect lies. Communication Monographs 69(2): 144.

Montello, D. R. 1988. Classroom seating location and its effect on course achievement, participation,
and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 8(2): 149-157.

Morrow, P. C. and J. C. McElroy. 1981. Interior office design and visitor response: a constructive
replication. Journal of Applied Psychology 66(5): 646-650.

Moore, M. M. and D. L. Butler. 1989. Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women.
Semiotica 76(3/4): 205-215.

Moore, M. M. 2001. Flirting. In C. G. Waugh (Ed.) Let’s talk: A cognitive skills approach to
interpersonal communication. Newark, Kendall-Hunt.

Moore, M. M. 1985. Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: context and consequences. Ethology and
Sociobiology 64: 237-247.

Morris, T. L., J. Gorham, S. H. Cohen, and D. Huffman. 1996. Fashion in the classroom: effects of
attire on student perceptions of instructors in college classes. Communication Education 45(2): 135.

Morris, Desmond. Peoplewatching. London: Vintage, 2002.

Moody, E. J., D. N. McIntosh, L. J. Mann, and K. R. Weisser. 2007. More than mere mimicry? The
influence of emotion on rapid facial reactions to faces. Emotion. 7(2): 447-457.

Middlemist, R. D., E. S. Knowles, and C. F. Matter. 1976. Personal space invasions in the lavatory:

suggestive evidence for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(5): 541-546.

Mobbs, N.A. 1968. Eye-contact in Relation to Social Introversion-Extraversion. British Journal of
Social Clinical Psychology 7: 305-306.

Mulac, A., Studley, L., Wiemann, J., & Bradac, J. 1987. Male/female gaze in same-sex
and mixed-sex dyads. Human Communication Research. 13: 323-343.

Miller, Patrick W. 2005. Body language in the classroom: communication is more than words, and it is
important for teachers and administrators to understand the nonverbal messages they are sending and
receiving in the classroom. Techniques. 80(8): 28.

Michelini, RL, Passalacqua, R., & Cusimano, J. 1976. Effects of seating arrangement on group
participation. Journal of Social Psychology. 99: 179-186.

-N-

Norum, G. A., N. J. Russo, and R. Sommer. 1967. Seating patterns and group tasks. Psychology in the
Schools 4(3): 276-280.

Natale, M., E. Entin, and J. Jaffe. 1979. Vocal interruptions in dyadic communication as a function of
speech and social anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 865-878.

Natale, Michael. 1976. A Markovian model of adult gaze behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research. 5(1): 53-63.

Briton, Nancy J.; Hall, Judith A. 1995. Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 32(1): 79-90.

Nierenberg, G.I. 1983. Negotiating Strategies and Counterstrategies: How to Develop Win/Win
Techniques. Management Review, 72: 48-49.

Norum, G.A., Russo, N.J., and Sommer, R. 1967. Seating patterns and group tasks. Source: Psychology
in the schools. 4(3): 276-280.

-O-

Owren, Michael J.; Bachorowski, Jo-Anne 2003. Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic
communication: the case of laughter Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 27(3): 183-200.

-P-

Patrington. 1997. NLP for Business Success: How to Master Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
Management Research News. 20(8): 43.

Patterson, Miles L.; Montepare, Joann M. 2007. Nonverbal behavior in a global context dialogue
questions and responses. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 31(3): 167-168.

Panksepp, J. 1998. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundation of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford
Univ. Press, New York.

Panksepp, J., Burgdorf, J., “Laughing” rats and the evolutionary antecedents of human joy? Physiology
& Behavior (2003) 79: 533-547.

Park, H. S., T. R. Levine, S. A. McCornack, K. Morrison, and M. Ferrara. 2002. How people really
detect lies. Communication Monographs. 69: 144-157.

Parrill, F. and I. Kimbara. 2006. Seeing and hearing double: the influence of mimicry in speech and
gesture on observers. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 30(4): 157-166.

Pease, Barbara and Allan Pease. 2006. The Definitive Book of Body Language Hardcover. Bantam.

Peluchette, J. V., K. Karl, and K. Rust. 2006. Dressing to impress: beliefs and attitudes regarding
workplace attire. Journal of Business and Psychology 21(1): 45-63.

Peterson, Robin T. 2005. An Examination of the Relative Effectiveness of Training in Nonverbal
Communication: Personal Selling Implications. Journal of Marketing Education. 27(2): 143-150.

Penton-Voak, I. S., D. I. Perrett, D. Castles, M. Burt, T. Kobayashi, and L. K. Murray. 1999. Female
preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature 399: 741-742.

Pillsworth, E. G., M. G. Haselton and D. M. Buss. 2004. Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire.
Journal of Sex Research. 41: 55-65.

Provine, Robert R. 2005. Yawning: The yawn is primal, unstoppable and contagious, revealing the
evolutionary and neural basis of empathy and unconscious behavior. Source: American Scientist. 93(6):
532-540.

Provine, Robert R. 2005. Yawning. American Scientist. 2005. 93(6): 532-539

Provine, Robert R.. 2000. The laughing species. Natural History. 109(10): 72-76.

Provine, Robert R. 2000. Laugh and the world laughs with you. Scientific American. 283(6): 108-110.

Provine, Robert R. 2000. The science of laughter. Psychology Today. 33(6):

Provine, R. R. 1986. Yawning as a stereotyped action pattern and releasing stimulus. Ethology 72:109-
122.

Provine, R. R. 1992. Contagious laughter: Laughter is a sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30: 1- 4.

Provine, R. R. 1993. Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of laughter.
Ethology 95: 291-298.

Provine, R. R., and K. R. Fischer. 1989. Laughing, smiling, and talking: Relation to sleeping and social
context in humans. Ethology 83: 295-305.

Provine, R. R., and Y. L. Yong. 1991. Laughter: A stereotyped human vocalization. Ethology 89: 115-
124.

Provine, R.R. Contagious yawning and laughing: Everyday imitation and mirror-like behavior.
Behavioral and Brain Science. 28: 142.

Priest, RF; Thein, MT. 2003. Humor appreciation in marriage: Spousal similarity, assortative mating,
and disaffection. Humor-international journal of humor research, 16(1): 63-78.

Phelps, F., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Warnock Educational Psychology., 27, 91-107. (2006). Functional
benefits of children’s gaze aversion during questioning. British Journal Developmental Psychology. 24:
577-588.

Puts, D.A. 2007. Men’s voices as dominance signals: Vocal fundamental and formant frequencies
influence dominance attributions among men. Source: Evolution and human behavior 28(5): 340-344.

Puts, D.A. 2005. Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preference for male voice pitch.
Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 388-397.

-Q-

Quilliam, Susan. 2004. Body Language: Learn to read and use the body’s secrete signals. Firefly books
Inc.

-R-

Raghubir, P. and A. Valenzuela. 2006. Center-of-inattention: position biases in decision-making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (1): 66-80.

Rogers, W. T. and S. E. Jones. 1975. Effects of dominance tendencies on floor holding and interruption
behavior in dyadic interaction. Human Communication Research I: 113-122.

Roger, D. B. and W. Nesshoever. 1987. Individual differences in dyadic conversational strategies: a
further study. British Journal of Social Psychology 26: 247-754

Roger, D. B. and A. Schumacher. 1983. Effects of individual differences on dyadic conversational
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45(3): 700-705.

Remland, M. S. and T. S. Jones 1995. Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, and Touch: Effects of
Culture, Gender, and Age. Journal of Social Psychology 135(3): 281-297.

Rosenfeld, H., Breck, B., Smith, S., & Kehoe, S. 1984. Intimacy-mediators of the proximity-gaze
compensation effect: Movement, conversational role, acquaintance, and gender. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior. 8: 235-249.

Rosengrant, T., & McCroskey, J. 1975. The effects of sex and race on proxemic
behavior in an interview setting. The Southern Speech Communication Journal,
40: 408-420.

Russell, James A. 1995. Facial Expressions of Emotion: What Lies Beyond Minimal Universality?
Psychological bulletin. 118(3): 379-391.

Russell, James A. 1994. Is There Universal Recognition of Emotion From Facial Expression? A
Review of the Cross-Cultural Studies. Psychological Bulletin. 115(1): 102-141.

Rutter, D.C; D. C. Pennington, M. E. Dewey and J. Swain. 1984. Eye-contact as a chance product of
individual looking: Implications for the intimacy model of Argyle and Dean. Source: Journal of
nonverbal behavior. 8(4): 250-258.

Riess, M. and P. Rosenfeld. 1980. Seating preferences as nonverbal communication: a self-
presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Communications Research 8(1): 22.

Richard Tessler and Lisa Sushelsky. 1978. Effects of eye contact and social status on the perception of
a job applicant in an employment interviewing situation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 13(3): 338-
347.

R. Stephen and R. Zweigenhaft. 1986. The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female
customers. The Journal of Social Psychology 126 pp. 141–142.

-S-

Schleidt, 1980. Personal odor and nonverbal communication. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1(3): 225-
231.

Scherer, K.R., Wallbott, H.G., Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., 1988. Emotional experience in cultural
context: a comparison between Europe, Japan, and the United states. In: Scherer, K.R. (Ed.), Faces of
Emotions. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Scherer,K.R., Johnstone,T., Klasmeyer,G., 2003. Vocal expression of emotion. In: Davidson,R.,
Scherer, K., Goldsmith, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 433–456.

Sommer, R. 1965. Further studies of small group ecology. Sociometry 28: 337-348.

Sommer, R. 1967. Small group ecology. Psychological Bulletin 67(2): 145-152.

Sommer, R. 1967. Socifugal space. American Journal of Sociology 72(6): 654-659.

Sommer, R. 1959. Studies in personal space. Sociometry 22: 247-260.

Sommer, R. and R. Hugo. 1958. Social interaction on a geriatrics ward. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry 4(2): 128-133.

Sommer, R. 1967. Classroom ecology. The Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science 3(4): 489-503.

Sporer, S. L. and B. Schwandt. 2007. Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic
synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 13: 1-34.

Stromwell, L. A., P. A. Granhag, and S. Landstrom. 2007. Children’s prepared and unprepared lies: can
adults see through their strategies? Applied Cognitive Psychology 21 (4): 457-471.

Sitton, Sarah C; Griffin, Susan T. 1981. Detection of deception from clients’ eye contact patterns.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 28(3): 269-271.

Stephen, Jolly. 2000. Understanding body language: Birdwhistell’s theory of kinesics Corporate
communications. 5(3): 133-139.

Simons, D.J., and Chabris, C.F. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for
dynamic events. Perception 28: 1059-1074.

Simonet, Versteeg, & Storie 2005 Dog Laughter: Recorded playback reduces stress related behavior in
shelter dogs. 7th International Conference on Environmental Enrichment (2005)

Stephenson, G. M. and B. K. Kniveton. 1978. Interpersonal and interparty exchange: an experimental
study of the effect of seating position on the outcome of negotiations between teams representing
parties in dispute. Human Relations 31(6): 555-566.

Sato, W. and S. Yoshikawa. 2007. Spontaneous facial mimicry in response to dynamic facial
expressions. Cognition 104(1): 1-18

Simone, Pika; Nicoladis, Elena; Marentette, Paula, F. A cross-cultural study on the use of gestures:
Evidence for cross-linguistic transfer? Bilingualism Language and Cognition. 9(3): 319 -327

Sandoval. 2001. Subtle skills for building rapport: using neuro-linguistic programming in the interview
room. FBI law enforcement bulletin. 70(8): 1-635.

Skinner. 2003. Speaking the same language: the relevance of neuro-linguistic programming to effective
marketing communications Source: Journal of Marketing Communications. 9(3): 177-192.

Silverman, I., & Eals, M. 1992. Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. In J.
H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
generation of culture (pp. 531–549). New York: Oxford Press.

Smith, D. E., Gier, J. A., & Willis, F. N. 1982. Interpersonal touch and compliance with a marketing
request. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 3: 35-38.

Strodtbeck Fred L. and L. Harmon Hook 1961. The social dimensions of a twelve-man jury table.
Sociometry. 24(4): 397-415.

Stephen Reysen. 2006. A New Predictor of Likeability: Laughter. North American journal of
psychology. 8(2): 373-382.

Scharlemann, Jorn P. W., Eckel, Catherine C., Kacelnik, Alex, Wilson, Rick K.
2001. The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology. 22(5):
617-640.

-T-

Terrion, Jenepher Lennox; Ashforth, Blake E. 2002. From ‘I’ to ‘We’: The Role of Putdown Humor and
Identity in the Development of a Temporary Group
Human Relations. 55(1): 55-88.

Tracy, Jessica L; Robins, Richard W 2008. The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence
for cross-cultural recognition Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 94(3): 516-530.

Tombs, Selina; Silverman, Irwin 2004. Pupillometry: A sexual selection approach.
Evolution and Human Behavior. 25(4): 221-228.

Tosey, Paul; Mathison, Jane; Michelli, Dena. 2005. Mapping Transformative Learning: The Potential of
Neuro-Linguistic. Journal Of Transformative Education. 3(2): 140-167.

Talwar, Victoria; Lee, Kang . 2002. Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children’s control
of expressive behaviour during verbal deception International Journal Of Behavioral Development.
26(5): 436-444.

Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. 1993. The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Thornhill, R. and S. W. Gangestad. 1999. The scent of symmetry: a human pheromone that signals
fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior 20: 175-201.

Thornhill, R., S. W. Gangestad, R. Miller, G. Scheyd, J. McCollough, and M. Franklin. 2003. MHC,
symmetry and body scent attractiveness in men and women (Homo sapiens). Behavioral Ecology 14:
668-678.

Thornhill, R. and S. W. Gangestad. 2003. Evolutionary theory led to evidence for a male sex
pheromone that signals symmetry. Psychological Inquiry 14 (3-4): 318-325.

Turner, L. H., K. Dindia, and J. C. Pearson. 1995. An investigation of female/male verbal behaviors in
same-sex and mixed-sex conversations. Communication Reports 8: 86-96.

-U-

Urbaniak, Anthony. Nonverbal communication in selling. SuperVision[Burlington]. 2005. 66(6): 13-15.

Navarro, J. 2003. A four-domain model of detecting deception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin June:
19-24.

-V-

Vargas, M. F. 1986. Louder Than Words: An Introduction to Non-Verbal Communication. Ames, Iowa
State University Press.

van Baaren, R. B., R. W. Holland, K. Kawakami, and A. van Knippenberg. 2003. Mimicry and pro-
social behavior. Psychological Science 15: 71-74.

Van Swol, L. M. 2003. The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with
an imitator, and reciprocity in a group discussion. Communication Research 30 (4): 461-480.

Van Swol, L. M. 2003. The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with
an imitator, and reciprocity in a group discussion. Communication Research 30 (4): 461.

Vrij, A. and G. R. Semin. 1996. Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of
deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 20: 65-80.

Vrij, A. 1997. Individual differences in hand movements during deception. Source: Journal of

nonverbal behavior. 21: 87-102.

Vrij, A.. 2004. Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve Source: Legal and
Criminological Psychology. 9:159-181.

Vrij, A., S. Mann, and S. Kristen. 2007. Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of
police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior 31 (5): 499-518.

-W-

Watson, N. V., & Kimura, D. 1991. Nontrivial sex differences in throwing and intercepting: Relation to
psychometrically-defined spatial functions. Personality and Individual Differences. 12: 375–385.

Watson KK, Matthews BJ, Allman JM 2007. Brain activation during sight gags and language-
dependent humor. Cereb Cortex 17(2): 314–24.

West, C. and D. H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society I: 125-151.

Wood, John Andy 2006. NLP revisited: nonverbal communications and signals of trustworthiness.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 26(2): 197.

Walker. 1983 The expressive function of the eye flash. Journal of nonverbal behavior. 8(1): 3 -13.

Williams. 1993. Effects of Mutual Gaze and Touch on Attraction, Mood, and Cardiovascular Reactivity
Source: Journal of Research in Personality. 27(2): 170-183.

Willis, F. N., & Hamm, H. K. 1980. The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior. 5: 49-55.

Willis, F. 1966. Initial speaking distance as a function of the speaker’s relationship.
Psychonomic Science. 5: 221-222.

Wilson P, R. 1968. Perceptual distortion of height as a function of ascribed academic status. The
Journal of social psychology. 74: 97-97.

-X-

NONE

-Y-

Yeagley, Erin; Morling, Beth; Nelson, Maria 2007. Nonverbal zero-acquaintance accuracy of self-
esteem, social dominance orientation, and satisfaction with life. Journal of Research in Personality.
41(5): 1099-1106.

Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., Merget, D. 2007. The Unbearable Likeness of Being
Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments. The Journal of
CyberPsychology and Behavior. 10: 115-121.

-Z-

Zajonc, R. B., P. K. Adelmann, S. T. Murphy, and P. M. Niedenthal. 1987. Convergence in the physical
appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion 11 (4): 335-346.

Zald, D. H. The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli. Brain Res. Brain
Res. Rev. 2003. 41: 88–123.

Zimmerman, D. H. and C. West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B.
Thorne and N. Henley (Eds) Language and sex: difference and dominance: 105-129. Rowley, Newbury
House.

Zweigenhaft, R. L. 1976. Personal space in the faculty office: Desk placement and the student-faculty
interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (4): 529-532.