Eye Movements Do Not Reveal Lying

Multiple tests of eye-movement direction and honesty found no correlation between lying and eye direction. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The eyes are the windows to the soul. As such they can reveal if someone is lying, right? Cop shows, advice shows, even some organizational training courses hold that if somebody looks up and to the right, they’re probably lying. Up and to the left means they’re telling the truth.

Now a study says that there is no connection between eye movement and lying. The work is in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [Richard Wiseman et al., "The Eyes Don't Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming"]

Researchers tested eye movement and honesty in multiple ways. For example, they tracked the eye movements of subjects who were lying or telling the truth about things they had recently done. There was no correlation between lying and eye direction.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers also closely analyzed 52 archived news videos of real people making a public plea for the safe return of a missing relative. In half the videos the plea was sincere—but in half there was strong evidence that the speaker was involved in the crime. Again, no eye-movement clue was evident. So when judging the honesty of a speaker, remember: the eyes do not have it.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe