This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Documented Research Paper
Raymond Rivera PSY 210, Section N40 (40732) Professor Faye Hoese 26 September 2009
These people have become known as human lie detectors or are called ³Wizards´ by some researchers.Rivera . one thing is certain. only 31 of them were able to detect deception at a rate higher than chance percentages. Bond defines the . O¶Sullivan is a professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. Maureen O¶Sullivan and Ekman in 2004.000 people tested. O¶Sullivan calls these people wizards (³Lying and deceit ± The Wizards Project´. Other researchers have tried to either prove or disprove the findings of people that have a unique ability to identify deception in human communications above the average percentages of accuracy. human lie detectors with above chance percentage accuracies do exist. what studies have been conducted. One of the most prominent studies conducted in deception detection was by Dr. what difficulties do they face in doing so. As scientists and psychologists began studying and conducting research in lying.000 people were tested in their abilities to detect deception. In another study. what are the characteristics common in human lie detectors. With so much research having been conducted in the areas of lying and detection of deception. how do they achieve such a high level of accuracy in detection. O¶Sullivan. To explore whether lie detection wizards are a true finding. Dr. Dr. How do we know when someone is lying? Why do we lie? How can we detect deception? In the search to answer these questions. this paper will explore 5 key areas. From this 13.1 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? Lying is a very interesting subject for social psychologists. and is it possible to train someone to be accurate in lie detection over chance percentages. other questions emerged. Three different tests were used to establish the findings reported by Dr. conducted by Bond and DePaulo in 2006. In this study 13. the ability for a small group of people to detect deception above chance percentage was also discovered. 2004). a small percentage of people have been discovered that can detect deception at a rate higher than chance percentage.
34 people that were from the Secret Service Forensic Services Division were tested in deception detection. Ekman et al.2 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? percentages associated with deception detection as 70%-80% accuracy being above-chance and 35%-40% accuracy being below-chance (Deception Detection Expertise. More than half of the 34 people tested were determined to be above 70% accurate in detecting deception in the videotaped subjects. The 4 tests would be administered in 2 separate experiments for a total of 8 tests. In yet another study conducted in 1991 by Ekman and O¶Sullivan. only 2 participants tested at above 80% accuracy and above 90% accuracy on a second evaluation that used the same four types of testing as in the first study. This research also produced evidence that normal detection accuracy is close to a 54% average. one-third of this group was able to detect deception above 80% accuracy. In this study video tapes of undergraduate nurses either lying or telling the truth were used from a study conducted by Ekman et al. most of the participants were university graduates used as the detectors. . 2008) 4 different tests were used to establish deception detection accuracy. Additionally. In the research findings detailed by Bond (Deception Detection Expertise. in 1974. In the particular studies producing these resulting percentages of accuracy.Rivera . The fact these 2 participants were women and Native Americans have no relevance in an overall assessment of what characteristics are present in the small group of lie detection wizards as you will read about later in this paper. conducted another study on a group of federal officers and the results showed once again that a portion of these participants were 80% accurate in their ability to detect deception. In 1999. The two subjects from the group of 34 that demonstrated the ³Wizard´ ability in deception detection were both Native American Bureau of Indian Affairs correctional officers and were female. 2008). During this study.
O¶Sullivan was that of this group. She states that both genders are equally spread within the group of lie detection wizards. so being a man or woman has no relevance as a trait common in this group. Though these characteristics are not exactly the commonalities some would expect.´ They are well practiced at lie detection and are extremely attentive when doing so.000 participants was the presence of motivation. There are a few characteristics present in these human lie detectors. The group included high school graduates as well as doctors. O¶Sullivan (³Lying and deceit ± The Wizards Project´. Based on the results of these studies. The group consisted of ³attorneys´ as well as ³hunters´. One thing common to all of them is a constant practice of their skills in detection. they must be constantly aware of the details in their environment to . The education levels seemed to also have no relevance in the unique accuracy demonstrated in lie detection by this group either. In another article. One characteristic noted by Dr. 2004) states the wizards are ³«really interested in being able to understand other people.3 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? These studies do support that a small percentage of people exist in our population that have an ability to detect deception at a very high percentage of accuracy.Rivera . human lie detectors or wizards do exist. ³« 20 to 30 percent reported some sort of childhood trauma«´ Some of the traits or personal experiences discovered in the detection experts may play a role in how these individuals can detect deception with a very high percentage of accuracy. they can be seen within those people considered lie detection experts. An interesting find by Dr. O¶Sullivan comments on some additional characteristics found in lie detection wizards (³Scientists pick out human lie detectors. The group consisted of hunters. All of the participants found to be detection experts were considered intelligent. O¶Sullivan in her study of 13. 2004). Another characteristic noted by O¶Sullivan is a high level of ³«relevant life experience´.
This allows them to possibly be more successful in meeting their goals in any project.4 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? be successful while hunting any type of animal. Still. Another key point to focus on is that O¶Sullivan stated that Secret Service agents tended to show strong performance in lie detection. 2009). These agents are trained to specifically pick out threats based on non-verbal cues. When someone discusses how to determine if someone is lying. This seems to be a common non-verbal cue to look for in many lie detection scenarios or events. race. tasking or case they may be working on. The attorneys must become experts at human communications and interactions when doing their job. she highlights many non-verbal cues and communications that can be used to determine when deceit is taking place. Instead. at this time it is very difficult to pinpoint any single personality trait. this may be an indication of deception. In an article by Suzanne Pitner. most of the time nonverbal cues are the key in doing so. gender. if the person was looking at you and looked away. is the pitch of voice used in verbal communications. She outlines 4 body language cues that can be used in lie detection. Another thing to pay close attention to. (³How to Tell if Someone is Lying´. common traits found in human lie detectors loosely relate more to how these experts come to possess the skill of accurately detecting deception above the chance percentages. Staying focused on pitch changes is the key here and attests to machines . Those that experienced some sort of childhood trauma may have had to become expert detectors of basic human emotions from observation of non-verbal cues exhibited by family members. life experience. The first is eye movement.Rivera . These skills demonstrated or expressed by the participants considered human lie detectors in these studies are integral in enabling them to detect deception with a high percentage of accuracy. according to Pitner. education level or area of expertise that will produce a lie detection wizard.
´ This attests to the cognitive capabilities the lie . they were significantly better at detecting deception. These difficulties are similar to those outlined in Pitner¶s 2009 article. people were better able to differentiate an observed subject¶s normal behavior from abnormal. with prior knowledge of baseline information. alluding to the presence of deception in their communications. Pitner suggests 10 signs to be look aware of when judging a person¶s truthfulness. 1982) So here. Also noted is the actual movement of the individual¶s body during a conversation. Other items discovered through the conduct of varying studies is how the human lie detectors process information and make judgments based on that information. she states that an observer must be familiar with the individual¶s ³baseline behavior´ before coming to a conclusion that deceit is taking place. how this information is organized and interpreted. the level of accuracy a participant would be able to detect deception was not as greatly affected. simply focusing on one particular behavior or cue would not improve accuracy. Brandt et al. A professor at the University of New Brunswick. ³The manner in which a person approaches decision making is thought to influence the amount of information he or she gathers. All 10 of these fall into one or more of the 4 categories discussed above. Mary Ann Campbell (2005) suggested. With relevance to baseline knowledge.5 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? capable of measuring stress in vocal patterns.Rivera . even if baselines were established for the subjects being observed. and the number of alternatives a person considers when making a decision. Also discovered was that further ³«exposure did not significantly increase accuracy. What was discovered is that when a participant was made aware of baseline behaviors. However. Therefore. For this item.´ (³Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension´. with additional disclosure of baseline information. The difficulties in developing accurate determinations using these techniques are also brought to light in her article. conducted studies to determine the level of accuracy in deception detection.
body language and ways of talking and thinking.Rivera . What was discovered is that both experts discovered through this study used both cognitive and emotional cues from the subjects being observed to determine deception. rather than relying on intuition to make decisions. An elaboration of cognitive ability in how the detection experts processed information has been made. Looking back to the O¶Sullivan study group where 31 wizards were identified.6 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? detection experts may possess above those of the majority of people found to detect deception at chance or below percentages. Both cognitive and emotional aspects of communication are used by the experts to be able to accurately detect a lie. 2007). The detection experts were cognitively analyzing the behavior of the people they were observing while those that had chance percentages of accuracy were using intuition to detect deception.´ The speed at . and possibly audio cues compared against these non-verbal actions to narrow down whether the person was being deceptive or not. she pointed out (2004) ³Our wizards are extraordinarily attuned to detecting the nuances of facial expressions. facial expression. While those participants in the study that tested at normal rates of detection accuracy were slower to react and make decisions based on the same behavioral information witnessed in observed subjects. ³«experts are actively processing behavioral information. To determine what specific tools were used by the experts in the study published by Bond (2007). these areas showed they were observing non-verbal cues such as body movement.´ This conclusion was drawn by researchers when it was discovered that detection experts could rapidly make decisions of deception based on non-verbal cues observed in the subjects being watched. eye tracking analysis technology was utilized. While both experts may have been looking at different areas of the given subject at the time of decision. Bond states (³Detection Deception Expertise´.
Used predominantly in airports. thermal imaging technology and brain fingerprinting to name a few (³All About Lying (Honest!). there are people that can be deceptive without exhibiting many of the cognitive and emotional cues traditionally used in lie detection. use of words where they don¶t seem to fit in logically and even the flow in which someone communicates as a telling sign of deception. as Kornet (1997) wrote ³«there are certain language patterns that predict when someone is being less than honest.´ Again the difficulty here is in the accuracy of detection. This is where you would look for pitch changes in voice. 2009). although not used by the wizards highlighted in this paper. . are mechanical. As we will explore later in this paper.7 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? which these experts detected the non-verbal cues was also above normal and very detailed. Cognitive communication involves how we communicate in an overt manner. From these studies researchers have determined that. Other methods in use to aid in lie detection. These are polygraph tests. Some studies have been conducted using text analysis to assess deception in communications. While these methods do tap into and monitor some of the same non-verbal cues that the human lie detectors do. the technologies themselves have an influence on those very cues they seek to isolate.Rivera . The emotional aspects of deception and communication can be found in these micro-expressions in someone¶s face. A condition in which thermal imaging technology has been used to detect deception is also flawed in that certain physiological factors are affected by the environments this technology has been commonly employed in. Being connected to a lie detector can cause nervousness and peak some of the non-verbal cues the machine is designed to detect. O¶Sullivan called these uncontrolled facial expressions ³micro-expressions´ that last for a fleeting moment but are detected by the experts and attribute to their ability to accurately detect deception above chance percentages.
it is still limited when compared with face-to-face communications. People are not physically capable of detecting when someone is lying because there are no sense organs for doing so. the technology has limitations since it cannot differentiate if the familiarity of an object is based on use of that object or just observation of it. discovered that people lie once or twice in . Brain fingerprinting is a technology in that it detects an individual¶s familiarity with certain objects.8 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? physiological effects caused in some people that are about to fly or have flown can create false detections of deception. Since we can observe and interpret multiple cues in communications. However. Even technologies used to detect lying have faults and limitations as do humans in the same respect. Now when multiple cues are present. In communication however. The same can be said of internet forms of communication. From this particular study. we can use the presence of these cues and piece them together as you would a puzzle. The people in this group ranged from 18 to 71 years of age. Studies and experiments conducted in lying and communication have produced results that tell us people lie to varying degrees on a daily basis. In a study by DePaulo and her colleagues (1996). not all cues used to determine an individual¶s truthfulness are not readily present.Rivera . Instead multiple cues must be observed that will give us the ability to decide whether someone is being truthful. 147 people were asked to maintain a diary where they were to record all of the lies they had told over the course of 1 week. The visual cues that many people utilize when attempting to detect deception are gone. over the phone only audible cues can be used to determine if a lie is being told. For example. While there may be access to some visual non-verbal communication online. DePaulo et al. we can more accurately detect the deception of a communicator. To zero in on one specific type of cue that can give us a hint as to one¶s deception is not reliable. Being able to detect deception is a difficult process because lying is such a normal part of society.
As children. it was found that they lied to their parents in half of all the conversations they had with them. DePaulo wrote (2004). (3) their knowledge. (2) their actions. why and when people lie.Rivera . However. achievements and failings. The study group also contained a percentage of college students. This proof suggests that lying is indeed a very normal and often integral part in how we communicate with each other. With this particular group. (4) explanations for their behaviors. A person may lie and tell the acquaintance the food was delicious. but why and what they lied about in any situation. social environments they observe or find themselves in give us contrary information. even if it was not. The study also found that men and women both lie in almost 1 of every 5 social encounters that lasted 10 or more minutes in duration. While the lies told about facts and personal possessions were least likely in the social interactions within the same group. . The researchers broke down the content of the lies told in this study into five areas. This is a lie.9 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? the course of one day. and (5) facts and personal possessions. This study did not just seek to record when the participants lied. By organizing when. Take for instance a lie told to an acquaintance regarding food they prepared for a pot-luck at work. generally we are taught that lying is a bad thing to do. It opened additional inquiry as to what role social acceptability plays in lying as part of everyday social interactions. the researchers could define specific social exchanges or interactions where lying was more or less acceptable. In the study of 147 people in 1996.´ The lies told regarding feelings and opinions were more commonplace in the social interactions for this group. This allowed the researchers to determine some social aspects of lying and communication. ³People lied about (1) their feelings and opinions. as children grow. plans. and whereabouts. why and even how lies were told by the participants. This study did provide some very interesting information in how.
they provide a sort of buffer in the social environment. Kornet (1997) suggests that ³though some lies produce interpersonal friction. Kornet (1997) wrote. With deception being a sort of necessity in our social environments. DePaulo discovered that married couples told minor lies in 10 percent of their interactions with each other. Another social pressure to lie comes from witnessing the degree of punishment an employee receives when they tell their boss they slept in as opposed to getting a flat tire on the way to work. 1997). However. Kornet (1997) wrote ³«DePaulo finds that dating couples lie to each other in about a third of their interaction . others may actually serve as a kind of harmless social lubricant. These lies are considered false positives. Social environments will teach us that some lies are acceptable while others are not.´ While this is true of dating relationships. The existences of false negative lies are also present in our social environments. our social environments teach us different when we are exposed to certain situations where a buffer is needed. So even though we are taught lying is a bad as children. false positive lies are ³10 to 20 times more common than false negative lies´ (Kornet. Even certain social situations and relationships will open doors for different types of lies as some studies have shown. With lying being so prevalent in our social environments.´ The primary reasons for lying are to escape punishment or get something we desire.perhaps even more often than they deceive other people.Rivera . The type of relationship shared between two people plays a role in the frequency and even type of lies that are used in their social interactions. in that while not true. many studies have also sought to determine who will lie. many difficulties present themselves when trying to detect if someone is being deceptive. Lies told in romantic relationships are somewhat different than those told in everyday communications with others.10 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? but it is told to preserve the feelings of the acquaintance. ³Further research reveals that .
In an Article it is stated that ³Having empathy is necessary to lie. a person will have greater difficulty in getting others to believe what they are saying.´ Another interesting discovery by psychiatrist Charles Ford cited by Kornet (1997) was that people experiencing depression ³seldom deceive others ± or are deceived themselves ± . 2009). sociable people are slightly more likely to lie. With less ability to empathize. The better someone is at being able to determine what another is feeling or thinking. more manipulative and irresponsible than people who tell few lies. a person¶s ability to empathize with another in a given social situation will produce even greater difficulty in being able to detect deception. Another key factor of communication is an individual¶s ability to empathize with others. According to this. ³«people least likely to lie are those who score high on psychological scales of responsibility and those with meaningful same-sex friendships. because you have to understand another person¶s thoughts and feelings to be able to make them believe your lie. Researchers have discovered there are people that are less likely to lie. There is another side to the likelihood of telling lies. it seems they are more likely to be deceptive under certain circumstances.´ (All About Lying (Honest!). Frequent liars also care deeply about what other people think of them and are more extraverted. and that some personality and physical traits ± notably self-confidence and physical attractiveness ± have been linked to an individual¶s skill at lying when under pressure. Kornet (1997) noted. in fact.Rivera . It is also the individual having a very personal relationship with someone that will more readily lie to preserve the other person¶s emotions.´ When an individual is more practiced and confident in their social interactions with others. the better they will be at telling the other person a lie. I believe that this too plays a role in determining if someone is more likely to be deceptive in a given social situation.´ DePaulo (2004) also pointed out that in the diary study ³People who tell many lies are.11 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? extroverted.
Under scrutiny. Not every social interaction will contain a lie. relationships and even our state and stability of mind have an effect on when. O¶Sullivan (2004) states that in regards to non-verbal cues and micro-expressions. We¶ve examined the expert lie detector and some difficulties they face in deception detection because of the frequent inclusion of deception in our social environments. why and how a person will lie. While not seen as acceptable by the general society. Experts at hiding the non-verbal cues used in lie detection present even more difficulties in deception detection. In an article. ³Certain types of people known as ³super liars´ are aware of those problems [the cues that are identified when someone is detecting deception]´. There are other physiological factors that can produce the same non-verbal cues or micro-expressions that have been outlined .12 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? because they seem to perceive and describe reality with greater accuracy than others.Rivera .´ The implications of this mean that social pressures. What about the difficulties presented by what can be considered expert liars. 2004). Many of the articles giving advice on how to detect deception warn of non-verbal cues and micro-expressions not always being associated with a lie. Criminals on the other hand find it acceptable to lie in order to avoid punishment for their crimes. Lies told to benefit others would be deemed more acceptable whereas lying to harm someone else is not. (³Scientists pick out human lie detectors´. although studies show they will be present on a regular basis. A person¶s sense of self and their environments will play a role in the deceptions that person will use or be subject to in the social interactions and environments they find themselves. This is where the idea of lying as a ³social lubricant´ comes into play. Positive and negative outcomes produced by lying determine the acceptability of deception in society. it is definitely acceptable in the social realm of the criminal. lying and social interactions seem to have a necessary relationship.
13 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? in lie detection. a study was conducted to determine what cues were used by participants to determine deception. The research conducted to determine if lie detection experts exist has resulted in the finding that expert lie detectors perceive information and process it differently than people that fall in chance percentages of accuracy. Detecting deception requires observational and cognitive skills that are not held by the average person. When a possibility exists that a cue can be triggered by something other than deception. The lie detection wizards practice their skills and this helps to develop the detail in their observation of non-verbal cues in communication. their ability to pick up on emotional cues in a subject and process that information based on other present cues. It is like training themselves to turn off the heuristic processing that normally takes place in a social environment. Feeley et al. claimed ³Results indicated that subjects primarily used a communicator¶s verbal plausibility. such as high emotional intelligence. In an article by Feeley et al. they can theoretically increase their deception detection accuracy. Can someone be trained to better detect deception? Campbell (2005) suggests that ³«those more attuned to emotional information. and non-verbal expectancy violation to guide their veracity judgments. In this study.. may be more proficient lie detectors.Rivera . the level of detail required to accurately determine when someone is lying is limited. Because we process our social environments in a heuristic way.´ If an individual can increase their emotional intelligence. it is clear that someone trying to determine deception is going to face many difficulties in doing so. nervousness.´ This research also showed that it was . other cues have to be rapidly considered and taken into account. When examining all the information compiled from these types of deception studies.
we would have to constantly change the cues we were looking for because people will communicate and lie in many different ways and for many different reasons. Further studies on how the lie detection wizards achieve such high percentages of accuracy can produce guidelines for training people to increase their individual skills needed to detect lies. however these were very controlled situations where the cues used in detection were already identified and watched for. A relationship between the person observing and the person being judged in honesty must also be present. in 1990. a few percentage points at most. In the article.14 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? more difficult to detect deception than it was to detect the truth as the study resulted in accuracy being higher for truth judgments as opposed to deception judgments. training may improve detection accuracy. In an article it is stated that ³In a very few instances. In limited situations training can increase accuracy. but the change is very small. The level of suspicion that is present when someone is trying to detect deception also plays a role in accuracy as was discovered in a study published by McCornack et al.´ This study was conducted on couples who were not married and concluded that suspicion of deception did improve the accuracy of determining a lie was told by their partners. suspicion alone would not be required to increase accuracy in detection.´ (³Can Training Help People Detect Lying and Deception´. Training in itself would not be able to produce the level of detection accuracy that is found in the wizards of lie detection. Items to focus on in one environment may not be the same for another. This is because the dynamics of lying in our social environments include so many factors. 2009). .Rivera . Again. it is stated that ³Results suggest that both situationally-aroused suspicion and GCS [generalized communicative suspicion] significantly increased accuracy. When observing one person and then doing the same for another.
Training strategies to increase an individual¶s ability to accurately detect deception have resulted in few improvements in the increase of accuracy. Most of the techniques used by the experts to detect deception at such high percentages of accuracy are tied to their emotional and cognitive abilities where non-verbal cues are paired with verbal cues and overt behavior in the subjects they were observing. except in some controlled environments. people with an amazing ability to detect lies at high accuracy rates have been discovered. Because lying and deception are an integral part of how people communicate. .Rivera . The prevalence and necessity of deception in our social environments has also been pointed out through many of these studies. The difficulties in deception detection have also been highlighted by many of the same studies. and are capable of telling when someone is being deceptive at accuracies better than most of the known lie detection technology we have in use today.15 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? The studies conducted with lie detection wizards do show above chance percentage accuracy. multiple studies in varying locations have resulted in the discovery of a small percentage of human lie detectors. Through all of this research. the task of human lie detection is a very difficult one at that. However. They do exist. The traits and characteristics of these individuals have no direct relation to the levels of accuracy they were able to achieve in lie detection.
Miller. Law and Human Behavior.com/10. Retrieved August 27. Retrieved September 12. 2009 from http://www. 2009.unb. USA: Guilford Publications. March 22. Deception Detection Expertise. Retrieved August 27. 2009.com/articles/199705/the-truth-about-lying Kruglanski. New York.ebrary. Brandt.com/lib/cochise/Doc?id=10201017&ppg=203. 32(4). Retrieved September 10.611 Lying and deceit ± The Wizards Project (2004).).informaworld. & Hocking. from Research Library. Retrieved September 12. Retrieved September 13..truthaboutdeception. (2007).com/pdfs/lying_resource.org/pub_releases/2004-10/ama-lad100804. Thomas H.533. Psychology Today. from http://www. (1995).. from http://www. (Document ID: 9378277). 2009. 276-290. (Document ID: 1509937231). Gerald R. Global cue usage in behavioral lie detection. NY. Allison (1997). 420.html Feeley.psychologytoday.Rivera . 2009 from http://site. The Truth About Lying.sciencenetlinks. Incorporated. Mark A. Arie W. 2009.ca/perspectives/about.1080/10570318209374086 Campbell.com/detecting_deceit/public/detection_training. Retrieved September 8. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd Edition).php . 46 (3). Mary Ann (2005). 2009 from http://www. Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension. G. 339-51. (1982). from http://www. Kornet. Communication Quarterly.html Can Training Help People Detect Lying and Deception? Retrieved September 10. The Human Lie Detector? UNB Perspectives.eurekalert. from Research Library.pdf Bond. 2009. John E.16 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? Works Cited All About Lying (Honest!). 2009. (Ed. & deTurck. Western Journal of Communication. from http://www. 2005. (2008). David R. Retrieved September 10. 43(4).
NY. Retrieved September 12. Retrieved August 27.cfm/how_to_tell_if_someone_is_lying Scientists pick out human lie detectors (2004). from http://psychology. Bella M. How to Tell if Someone is Lying. Communication Monographs. When Lovers Become Leery: The Relationship between Suspicion and Accuracy in Detecting Deception. 2009.msnbc.17 Do Human Lie Detectors Really Exist? McCornack. New York. Retrieved September 9. Incorporated. Timothy R.Rivera .ebrary. & Levine.). Copyright 2009. 57(3). (Ed.com/lib/cochise/Doc?id=10172299&ppg=317-340 Pitner.com/article. (1990). 2009. Retrieved August 30. from http://www.com/id/6249749/ .. from Education Periodicals.msn. 2009 from http://site. (Chapter 12) Social Psychology of Good and Evil. The Associated Press. 219. USA: Guilford Publications. (Document ID: 2759392). Steven A. 2009. Suzanne (2009).suite101. DePaulo. Miller Arthur G. (2004).
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.