References
- Amsel, T.T. (2011), Mental Contamination. APA Magazine, 44(6), 28–30.
- Amsel, T.T. (2017), Polygraph Examinations contaminating factors. European Polygraph, 10,4(38), 7–13.
- APA, Education Accreditation Committee, Accreditation Standards, Version 2.06 (Effective April 2, 2022).
- APA Standards of practice (Adopted August 25, 2023), https://www.polygraph.org/docs/APA_STANDARDS_OF_PRACTICE_effective_25_August_2023.pdf (accessed: 7.02.2024).
- Awati, R., Garbage in Garbage out (GIGO) (2024), https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/definition/garbage-in-garbage-out (accessed: 7.02.2024).
- “Confirmation Bias”, www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias (accessed: 30.01.2024).
- Elaad, E., Ginton, A. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994), The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 279–292, https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070405.
- Elaad, E., Ginton, A. & Shakhar, B. (1998), The role of prior expectations in polygraph examiners decisions. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4(1), 1–16.
- Ginton, A. (2013), The Future Lies in Adaptive Polygraphy, presentation at the American Polygraph Association Annual Seminar, Orlando, FL. September 2013.
- “Golem Effect”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golemeffect (accessed: 29.01.2024).
- Honts C.R., Amato S.L. & Gordon A. (2004), Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test. Journal of General Psychology, 131(1), 53–76.
- IPEA Standard of Practice Section B.A, article 5, 8, 9 2000 edition.
- Krapohl, D.J. & Dutton, D.W. (2018), Believing is seeing: The influence of expectations on blind scoring of polygraph data. Polygraph and Forensic Credibility Assessment, 47(2), 91–107.
- Krapohl D. & Sturm S. (2002), “Superdampening Concept”, Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph, 31(3), 221.
- Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, J.A.M Publications, Williamsville NY, pp. 41–42, 199, 203–205, 278, 281, 292, 325, 328–342.
- Merton, R.K. (1948), The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Antioch Review, 8 (2 (Summer)), 195.
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Personalized Medicine, https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Personalized-Medicine (accessed: 12.02.2024).
- “Pygmalion Effect”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect (accessed: 12.02.2024).
- Reid J.E. & Inbau F.E. (1977), Truth and Deception, William & Wilkins, Baltimore, p. 224.
- Shurany, T., Matte, J.A. & Stein, E. (2009), Influence of case facts on blind scorers of polygraph tests. European Polygraph, .(9), 133–139.
- Sio, N.U. & Ormerod, T.C. (2009), Does Incubation Enhance Problem Solving? A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 94–120
- Smith, S.M. & Blankenship, S.E. (1989), Incubation effects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(4), 311.
- The Ad-Hoc Committee on Validated Techniques (2011), Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques, The American Polygraph Association Publication, https://polygraph.org/docs/polygraph_404.pdf (accessed: 7.02.2024).
- Thomas W.I. & Thomas, D.S. (1928), The child in America: Behavior problems and programs, Knopf, New York, NY, p. 572.
- Trovillo, P. (1939), A history of lie detection. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police, 29, pp. 848–881, Reprinted in Polygraph 1972, 1(2), pp. 46–74, and 1(3), pp. 151–160.
- Vellani, V., Zheng, S., Ercelik, D. & Sharot, T. (2023), The illusory truth effect leads to the spread of misinformation, Cognition, 236, 105421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105421.
- Wilson, T.D. & Brekke, N. (1994), Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.