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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30333683)

  • 1. The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions.
    Kleinberg B; Warmelink L; Arntz A; Verschuere B
    Appl Cogn Psychol; 2018; 32(5):592-599. PubMed ID: 30333683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Automated verbal credibility assessment of intentions: The model statement technique and predictive modeling.
    Kleinberg B; van der Toolen Y; Vrij A; Arntz A; Verschuere B
    Appl Cogn Psychol; 2018; 32(3):354-366. PubMed ID: 29861544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Been there before? Examining "familiarity" as a moderator for discriminating between true and false intentions.
    Knieps M; Granhag PA; Vrij A
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():677. PubMed ID: 25071648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Detecting false intentions using unanticipated questions.
    Bogaard G; van der Mark J; Meijer EH
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(12):e0226257. PubMed ID: 31825997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How humans impair automated deception detection performance.
    Kleinberg B; Verschuere B
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Feb; 213():103250. PubMed ID: 33450692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behavior.
    Vrij A; Fisher RP
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():1377. PubMed ID: 32625154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component.
    Harvey AC; Vrij A; Leal S; Lafferty M; Nahari G
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2017 Mar; 174():1-8. PubMed ID: 28088655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The language of lies: a preregistered direct replication of Suchotzki and Gamer (2018; Experiment 2).
    Frank A; Biberci S; Verschuere B
    Cogn Emot; 2019 Sep; 33(6):1310-1315. PubMed ID: 30507354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. T-Pattern Analysis and Cognitive Load Manipulation to Detect Low-Stake Lies: An Exploratory Study.
    Diana B; Zurloni V; Elia M; Cavalera C; Realdon O; Jonsson GK; Anguera MT
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():257. PubMed ID: 29551986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Lie Detection Using fNIRS Monitoring of Inhibition-Related Brain Regions Discriminates Infrequent but not Frequent Liars.
    Li F; Zhu H; Xu J; Gao Q; Guo H; Wu S; Li X; He S
    Front Hum Neurosci; 2018; 12():71. PubMed ID: 29593514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.