256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11931002)
21. Factors affecting Observers' Accuracy when Assessing Credibility: The Effect of the Interaction between Media, Senders' Competence and Veracity.
Caso L; Maricchiolo F; Livi S; Vrij A; Palena N
Span J Psychol; 2018 Nov; 21():E49. PubMed ID: 30419998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Behavioral cues to deception vs. topic incriminating potential in criminal confessions.
Davis M; Markus KA; Walters SB; Vorus N; Connors B
Law Hum Behav; 2005 Dec; 29(6):683-704. PubMed ID: 16382356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Listening, not watching: situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception.
Reinhard MA; Sporer SL; Scharmach M; Marksteiner T
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2011 Sep; 101(3):467-84. PubMed ID: 21707196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt.
Kassin SM; Goldstein CC; Savitsky K
Law Hum Behav; 2003 Apr; 27(2):187-203. PubMed ID: 12733421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments-results of a registered report.
van 't Veer AE; Gallucci M; Stel M; van Beest I
Front Psychol; 2015; 6():672. PubMed ID: 26106339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Language style matching and police interrogation outcomes.
Richardson BH; Taylor PJ; Snook B; Conchie SM; Bennell C
Law Hum Behav; 2014 Aug; 38(4):357-66. PubMed ID: 24730389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception.
Hauch V; Blandón-Gitlin I; Masip J; Sporer SL
Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 2015 Nov; 19(4):307-42. PubMed ID: 25387767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Detecting lies in children and adults.
Edelstein RS; Luten TL; Ekman P; Goodman GS
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 16729205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Subjective cues to deception/honesty in a high stakes situation: an exploratory approach.
Wright Whelan C; Wagstaff GF; Wheatcroft JM
J Psychol; 2015; 149(5):517-34. PubMed ID: 25975577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. An object cue is more effective than a word in ERP-based detection of deception.
Cutmore TR; Djakovic T; Kebbell MR; Shum DH
Int J Psychophysiol; 2009 Mar; 71(3):185-92. PubMed ID: 18789361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Cry me a river: identifying the behavioral consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception.
Ten Brinke L; Porter S
Law Hum Behav; 2012 Dec; 36(6):469-477. PubMed ID: 23205594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Deception Detection in Politics: Can Voters Tell When Politicians are Lying?
Mattes K; Popova V; Evans JR
Polit Behav; 2023; 45(1):395-418. PubMed ID: 34456405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: the boy-who-cried-wolf effect.
O'Sullivan M
Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2003 Oct; 29(10):1316-27. PubMed ID: 15189591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers.
Masip J; Martínez C; Blandón-Gitlin I; Sánchez N; Herrero C; Ibabe I
Front Psychol; 2017; 8():2207. PubMed ID: 29354078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Cues to deception: can complications, common knowledge details, and self-handicapping strategies discriminate between truths, embedded lies and outright lies in an Italian-speaking sample?
Caso L; Cavagnis L; Vrij A; Palena N
Front Psychol; 2023; 14():1128194. PubMed ID: 37179853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Insincere utterances and gaze: eye contact during sarcastic statements.
Williams JA; Burns EL; Harmon EA
Percept Mot Skills; 2009 Apr; 108(2):565-72. PubMed ID: 19544962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Unanticipated questions can yield unanticipated outcomes in investigative interviews.
Parkhouse T; Ormerod TC
PLoS One; 2018; 13(12):e0208751. PubMed ID: 30532180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Physically scarce (vs. enriched) environments decrease the ability to tell lies successfully.
Ten Brinke L; Khambatta P; Carney DR
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Oct; 144(5):982-92. PubMed ID: 26301794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Statements about true and false intentions: using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences.
Sooniste T; Granhag PA; Strömwall LA; Vrij A
Scand J Psychol; 2015 Aug; 56(4):371-8. PubMed ID: 25929812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The reliability of lie detection performance.
Leach AM; Lindsay RC; Koehler R; Beaudry JL; Bala NC; Lee K; Talwar V
Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):96-109. PubMed ID: 18594955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
