167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34136972)
1. To err is human but not deceptive.
Walczyk JJ; Cockrell NF
Mem Cognit; 2022 Jan; 50(1):232-244. PubMed ID: 34136972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Explicit Instructions Increase Cognitive Costs of Deception in Predictable Social Context.
Falkiewicz M; Sarzyńska J; Babula J; Szatkowska I; Grabowska A; Nęcka E
Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1863. PubMed ID: 26696929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Lying relies on the truth.
Debey E; De Houwer J; Verschuere B
Cognition; 2014 Sep; 132(3):324-34. PubMed ID: 24859237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Jumping the gun: Faster response latencies to deceptive questions in a realistic scenario.
Mapala T; Warmelink L; Linkenauger SA
Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Aug; 24(4):1350-1358. PubMed ID: 28290127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Utilizing the Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory to predict children's hypothetical decisions to deceive.
Wyman J; Cassidy H; Talwar V
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Jul; 218():103339. PubMed ID: 34058672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A truth that's told with bad intent: an ERP study of deception.
Carrión RE; Keenan JP; Sebanz N
Cognition; 2010 Jan; 114(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 19836013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging.
Spence SA; Hunter MD; Farrow TF; Green RD; Leung DH; Hughes CJ; Ganesan V
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2004 Nov; 359(1451):1755-62. PubMed ID: 15590616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive?
Osman M; Channon S; Fitzpatrick S
Psychon Bull Rev; 2009 Oct; 16(5):901-6. PubMed ID: 19815796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Deceptively simple … The "deception-general" ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight.
Wright GR; Berry CJ; Bird G
Front Neurosci; 2013 Aug; 7():152. PubMed ID: 24009549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Differentiation of deception using pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing.
Dionisio DP; Granholm E; Hillix WA; Perrine WF
Psychophysiology; 2001 Mar; 38(2):205-11. PubMed ID: 11347866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of deception on motor cortex excitability.
Kelly KJ; Murray E; Barrios V; Gorman J; Ganis G; Keenan JP
Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):570-4. PubMed ID: 18825589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions.
Melis G; Ursino M; Scarpazza C; Zangrossi A; Sartori G
Sci Rep; 2024 May; 14(1):12268. PubMed ID: 38806588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An electroencephalography network and connectivity analysis for deception in instructed lying tasks.
Wang Y; Ng WC; Ng KS; Yu K; Wu T; Li X
PLoS One; 2015; 10(2):e0116522. PubMed ID: 25679784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A repeated lie becomes a truth? The effect of intentional control and training on deception.
Hu X; Chen H; Fu G
Front Psychol; 2012; 3():488. PubMed ID: 23162520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Types of deception revealed by individual differences in cognitive abilities.
Morgan CJ; LeSage JB; Kosslyn SM
Soc Neurosci; 2009; 4(6):554-69. PubMed ID: 18654937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception.
Vendemia JM; Buzan RF; Green EP
Am J Psychol; 2005; 118(3):413-29. PubMed ID: 16255127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The motor cost of telling lies: electrocortical signatures and personality foundations of spontaneous deception.
Panasiti MS; Pavone EF; Mancini A; Merla A; Grisoni L; Aglioti SM
Soc Neurosci; 2014; 9(6):573-89. PubMed ID: 24979665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Electrodermal differentiation of deception: potentially confounding and influencing factors.
Vincent A; Furedy JJ
Int J Psychophysiol; 1992 Sep; 13(2):129-36. PubMed ID: 1399752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
