249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25387767)
1. 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]
2. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments.
Hartwig M; Bond CF
Psychol Bull; 2011 Jul; 137(4):643-59. PubMed ID: 21707129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles.
Newman ML; Pennebaker JW; Berry DS; Richards JM
Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2003 May; 29(5):665-75. PubMed ID: 15272998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles.
Vrij A; Mann S; Kristen S; Fisher RP
Law Hum Behav; 2007 Oct; 31(5):499-518. PubMed ID: 17211691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews.
Masip J; Blandón-Gitlin I; Martínez C; Herrero C; Ibabe I
Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1702. PubMed ID: 27847493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The effects of sketching while narrating on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews.
Deeb H; Vrij A; Leal S; Burkhardt J
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Feb; 213():103236. PubMed ID: 33360343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The inhibitory spillover effect: Controlling the bladder makes better liars.
Fenn E; Blandón-Gitlin I; Coons J; Pineda C; Echon R
Conscious Cogn; 2015 Dec; 37():112-22. PubMed ID: 26366466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the benefit of recalling an event in reverse order.
Vrij A; Mann SA; Fisher RP; Leal S; Milne R; Bull R
Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):253-65. PubMed ID: 17694424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception.
Vrij A; Hartwig M; Granhag PA
Annu Rev Psychol; 2019 Jan; 70():295-317. PubMed ID: 30609913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An empirical test of the behaviour analysis interview.
Vrij A; Mann S; Fisher RP
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):329-45. PubMed ID: 16718581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Truth-tellers stand the test of time and contradict evidence less than liars, even months after a crime.
Sukumar D; Wade KA; Hodgson JS
Law Hum Behav; 2018 Apr; 42(2):145-155. PubMed ID: 29672094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works.
Hartwig M; Granhag PA; Strömwall LA; Kronkvist O
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Oct; 30(5):603-19. PubMed ID: 16977348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Catching a Deceiver in the Act: Processes Underlying Deception in an Interactive Interview Setting.
Ströfer S; Ufkes EG; Noordzij ML; Giebels E
Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback; 2016 Sep; 41(3):349-62. PubMed ID: 27193132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
