The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) claim that certain eye-movements are reliable indicators of lying. According to this notion, a person looking up to their right suggests a lie whereas looking up to their left is indicative of truth telling. Despite widespread belief in this claim, no...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Richard Wiseman, Caroline Watt, Leanne ten Brinke, Stephen Porter, Sara-Louise Couper, Calum Rankin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3394779?pdf=render
id doaj-4ef055577d3247db8477088399d1f704
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4ef055577d3247db8477088399d1f7042020-11-25T01:23:40ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0177e4025910.1371/journal.pone.0040259The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.Richard WisemanCaroline WattLeanne ten BrinkeStephen PorterSara-Louise CouperCalum RankinProponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) claim that certain eye-movements are reliable indicators of lying. According to this notion, a person looking up to their right suggests a lie whereas looking up to their left is indicative of truth telling. Despite widespread belief in this claim, no previous research has examined its validity. In Study 1 the eye movements of participants who were lying or telling the truth were coded, but did not match the NLP patterning. In Study 2 one group of participants were told about the NLP eye-movement hypothesis whilst a second control group were not. Both groups then undertook a lie detection test. No significant differences emerged between the two groups. Study 3 involved coding the eye movements of both liars and truth tellers taking part in high profile press conferences. Once again, no significant differences were discovered. Taken together the results of the three studies fail to support the claims of NLP. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3394779?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Richard Wiseman
Caroline Watt
Leanne ten Brinke
Stephen Porter
Sara-Louise Couper
Calum Rankin
spellingShingle Richard Wiseman
Caroline Watt
Leanne ten Brinke
Stephen Porter
Sara-Louise Couper
Calum Rankin
The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Richard Wiseman
Caroline Watt
Leanne ten Brinke
Stephen Porter
Sara-Louise Couper
Calum Rankin
author_sort Richard Wiseman
title The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
title_short The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
title_full The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
title_fullStr The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
title_full_unstemmed The eyes don't have it: lie detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
title_sort eyes don't have it: lie detection and neuro-linguistic programming.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) claim that certain eye-movements are reliable indicators of lying. According to this notion, a person looking up to their right suggests a lie whereas looking up to their left is indicative of truth telling. Despite widespread belief in this claim, no previous research has examined its validity. In Study 1 the eye movements of participants who were lying or telling the truth were coded, but did not match the NLP patterning. In Study 2 one group of participants were told about the NLP eye-movement hypothesis whilst a second control group were not. Both groups then undertook a lie detection test. No significant differences emerged between the two groups. Study 3 involved coding the eye movements of both liars and truth tellers taking part in high profile press conferences. Once again, no significant differences were discovered. Taken together the results of the three studies fail to support the claims of NLP. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3394779?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT richardwiseman theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT carolinewatt theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT leannetenbrinke theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT stephenporter theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT saralouisecouper theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT calumrankin theeyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT richardwiseman eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT carolinewatt eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT leannetenbrinke eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT stephenporter eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT saralouisecouper eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
AT calumrankin eyesdonthaveitliedetectionandneurolinguisticprogramming
_version_ 1725120752484614144