These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

340 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17694424)

  • 41. Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews.
    Vrij A; Leal S; Mann S; Dalton G; Jo E; Shaboltas A; Khaleeva M; Granskaya J; Houston K
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Jun; 177():44-53. PubMed ID: 28477454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The development of recollection and familiarity in childhood and adolescence: evidence from the dual-process signal detection model.
    Ghetti S; Angelini L
    Child Dev; 2008; 79(2):339-58. PubMed ID: 18366427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.
    Bond CF; Depaulo BM
    Psychol Bull; 2008 Jul; 134(4):477-92. PubMed ID: 18605814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Different physiological reactions when observing lies versus truths: Initial evidence and an intervention to enhance accuracy.
    Ten Brinke L; Lee JJ; Carney DR
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 Sep; 117(3):560-578. PubMed ID: 30869984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The time of the crime: cognitively induced tonic arousal suppression when lying in a free recall context.
    Leal S; Vrij A; Fisher RP; van Hooff H
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 18504035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Cues to deception.
    DePaulo BM; Lindsay JJ; Malone BE; Muhlenbruck L; Charlton K; Cooper H
    Psychol Bull; 2003 Jan; 129(1):74-118. PubMed ID: 12555795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Distinguishing lies from jokes: theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients.
    Winner E; Brownell H; Happé F; Blum A; Pincus D
    Brain Lang; 1998 Mar; 62(1):89-106. PubMed ID: 9570881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in offenders.
    Klaver JR; Lee Z; Hart SD
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Aug; 31(4):337-51. PubMed ID: 17058120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Experienced and novice officers' generalized communication suspicion and veracity judgments.
    Masip J; Alonso H; Herrero C; Garrido E
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Apr; 40(2):169-81. PubMed ID: 26844912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. An empirical test of the decision to lie component of the Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT).
    Masip J; Blandón-Gitlin I; de la Riva C; Herrero C
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2016 Sep; 169():45-55. PubMed ID: 27219533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Outsmarting the liars: the benefit of asking unanticipated questions.
    Vrij A; Leal S; Granhag PA; Mann S; Fisher RP; Hillman J; Sperry K
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Apr; 33(2):159-66. PubMed ID: 18523881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Detecting deception: the scope and limits.
    Sip KE; Roepstorff A; McGregor W; Frith CD
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2008 Feb; 12(2):48-53. PubMed ID: 18178516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Amplifying recall after delays via initial interviewing: Inoculating truth-tellers' memory as a function of encoding quality.
    Harvey AC; Vrij A; Leal S; Deeb H; Hope L; Mann S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2020 Sep; 209():103130. PubMed ID: 32683098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. How deception and believability feedback affect recall.
    Vo TVA; Gunderson CA; Ten Brinke L
    Memory; 2022 Jul; 30(6):706-714. PubMed ID: 33557706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The effects of a model statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.
    Deeb H; Vrij A; Leal S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2020 Jun; 207():103080. PubMed ID: 32413731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Deception detection from written accounts.
    Masip J; Bethencourt M; Lucas G; Sánchez-San Segundo M; Herrero C
    Scand J Psychol; 2012 Apr; 53(2):103-11. PubMed ID: 22221194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A stability bias effect among deceivers.
    Harvey AC; Vrij A; Hope L; Leal S; Mann S
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Dec; 41(6):519-529. PubMed ID: 28726439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.