217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26301728)
1. The focal account: Indirect lie detection need not access unconscious, implicit knowledge.
Street CN; Richardson DC
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2015 Dec; 21(4):342-55. PubMed ID: 26301728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Unconscious processes improve lie detection.
Reinhard MA; Greifeneder R; Scharmach M
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2013 Nov; 105(5):721-39. PubMed ID: 24219784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The influence of affective states on the process of lie detection.
Reinhard MA; Schwarz N
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2012 Dec; 18(4):377-89. PubMed ID: 23148455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Some evidence for unconscious lie detection.
Ten Brinke L; Stimson D; Carney DR
Psychol Sci; 2014 May; 25(5):1098-105. PubMed ID: 24659190
[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. Guidance to detect deception with the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales: are verbal content cues useful to detect false accusations?
Sporer SL; Masip J; Cramer M
Am J Psychol; 2014; 127(1):43-61. PubMed ID: 24720096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Accuracy of deception judgments.
Bond CF; DePaulo BM
Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 2006; 10(3):214-34. PubMed ID: 16859438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The use-the-best heuristic facilitates deception detection.
Verschuere B; Lin CC; Huismann S; Kleinberg B; Willemse M; Mei ECJ; van Goor T; Löwy LHS; Appiah OK; Meijer E
Nat Hum Behav; 2023 May; 7(5):718-728. PubMed ID: 36941469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Power and lie detection.
Ulatowska J; Cislak A
PLoS One; 2022; 17(6):e0269121. PubMed ID: 35679292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving accuracy of veracity judgment through cue training.
Santarcangelo M; Cribbie RA; Hubbard AS
Percept Mot Skills; 2004 Jun; 98(3 Pt 1):1039-48. PubMed ID: 15209321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The self in conflict: the role of executive processes during truthful and deceptive responses about attitudes.
Johnson R; Henkell H; Simon E; Zhu J
Neuroimage; 2008 Jan; 39(1):469-82. PubMed ID: 17919934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Can Magic Deception Be Detected at an Unconscious Level?
Kawakami N; Miura E
Perception; 2017 Jun; 46(6):698-708. PubMed ID: 27956581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The source of the truth bias: Heuristic processing?
Street CN; Masip J
Scand J Psychol; 2015 Jun; 56(3):254-63. PubMed ID: 25707774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying deceptive hazard evaluation: An event-related potentials investigation.
Fu H; Qiu W; Ma H; Ma Q
PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0182892. PubMed ID: 28793344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias.
Masip J; Garrido E; Herrero C
Psychol Rep; 2009 Aug; 105(1):11-36. PubMed ID: 19810430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Is Lying Bound to Commitment? Empirically Investigating Deceptive Presuppositions, Implicatures, and Actions.
Reins LM; Wiegmann A
Cogn Sci; 2021 Feb; 45(2):e12936. PubMed ID: 33616222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Facial appearance and judgments of credibility: the effects of facial babyishness and age on statement credibility.
Masip J; Garrido E; Herrero C
Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr; 2003 Aug; 129(3):269-311. PubMed ID: 15134128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
