References
- Albrechtsen, J.S., Meissner, C.A. & Susa, K.J. (2009), Can intuition improve deception detection erformance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1052–1055, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.017
- Ambady, N. (2010), The Perils of Pondering: Intuition and Thin Slice Judgments, Psychological Inquiry 21(4):271–278.
- Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1992), Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.
- Amsel, T. (2016), Polygraph Examinations Contaminating Factors, European Polygraph, 4(38), 151–157.
- DePaulo, B.M. & Morris, W.L. (2004), Discerning lies from truths: Behavioral cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In Pär-Anders Granhag & Leif (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 15–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. & Cooper, H. (2003), Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
- 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. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1998), The role of prior expectations on polygraph examiners’ decisions, Psychology, Crime and Law, 4(1), 1–16.
- Fox, E. (2022), Switch Craft: The Hidden Power of Mental Agility, HarperOne, HarperCollins Publisher, NY.
- Gigerenzer, G. (2023), The Intelligence of Intuition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
- Ginton A., (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength – A new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of Psychological Set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 38 (3), 204–217.
- Ginton, A. (2013), The Importance of the Consistency Factor in CQT and Other Polygraph Tests. Polygraph, 42, 146–162.
- Ginton, A., (2019), Basic vs. Applied Psychology perspectives lead to different implications from the same data; reevaluating the impact of prior expectations on polygraph outcomes, Social Sciences & Humanities Open, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2019, 100005.
- Ginton A. (2022), Calculating the Base Rate in Polygraph Populations and the Posterior Confidence in the Obtained Results in the Comparison Question Test, Built upon the Proportion of Outcomes: The Case of Israel Police. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (2022), http://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-022-09526-6
- Gladwell, M. (2007), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Little, Brown & Co., NY
- Hurteau, M., Rahmanian, J., Houle, S. & Marchand, M.-P. (2020), The Role of Intuition in Evaluative Judgment and Decision. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(3), 326–338.
- Krapohl D.J. & Shaw P.K. (2015), Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, Academic Press, USA.
- 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.
- Matte, J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, J.A.M Publication, NY, 42–43.
- National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCfCA 2017) PDD 503-ANALYSIS II, (August 2017) Test Data Analysis: Numerical Evaluation Scoring System Pamphlet, Aug 2017 p. 6.
- Nelson, R. (2024), Practical Polygraph Integrating Automated Data Analysis Algorithms with Human Expert Decision Making, APA Magazine, 57 (1), 40–43.
- Raskin, C.D., Barland, GH. & Podlesny, J.A. (1978), Validity and Reliability of Detection of Deception, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U. S. Department of Justice.
- Reid, J. (1982), Behavior symptoms of polygraph subjects, Polygraph, 11(1) 37–45.
- Reid, J.E & Inbau, F.E. (1977), Truth and Deception The polygraph (“lie-detector”) technique”, The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore. Prof. Frank Horvath’s presentation “The Reid Polygraph Technique”, 48th Annual APA Seminar, Orlando, FL, September 12, 2013 and Polygraph (March 1982) 11(1).
- Sackett D.L., Rosenberg W.C., Muir Gray J.A., Haynes R.B. & Richardson W.S. (1996), Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 71–72.
- Stel, M., Schwarz, A., Van Dijk, E. & Van Knippenberg, A. (2020), The Limits of Conscious Deception Detection: When Reliance on False Deception Cues Contributes to Inaccurate Judgments, Frontiers in Psychology,11.
- Szucko, J.J. & Kleinmuntz, B. (1981), Statistical versus clinical lie detection, Polygraph, 10(2), 92–104.
- Ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D. & Carney, D.R. (2014), Some Evidence for Unconscious Lie Detection, Psychological Science 25(5), http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524421
- United States Government (2011), Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner handbook. Polygraph. 40(1), 1–66, p. 33.
- Wicklander, D.E. & Hunter, F.L. (1975), The Influence of auxiliary source of information in polygraph diagnosis”, Journal of Police Science & Administration, 3 (4), 405–409.
- Wygant, R.J. (1984), Rationale for scoring, Polygraph, 13(3), 263–266.
- Confirmation bias, APA Dictionary of Psychology, https://dictionary.apa.org/confirmation-bias (accessed: April 23, 2024, 20:40).
- Gut feeling/reaction, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gut-feeling-reaction?q=gut+feeling%2Freaction (accessed: March 3, 2024, 16:33).
- Intuition, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intuition (accessed: March 3, 2024, 16:35).
- American Polygraph Association, https://www.polygraph.org (accessed: March 4, 15:42).
- Awati R., Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO), TechTarget, https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/definition/garbage-in-garbage-out (accessed: March 3, 2024, 18:48).