Detecting deceit within a predominantly true statement using two parallel assessment methods: A pilot study

Uotinen, Marko; Simola, Petteri; Henttonen, Pentti J.

doi:10.2478/jms-2023-0005

References

Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190(1), pp. 80-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Braithwaite, J. J., Watson, D. G., Jones, R., & Rowe, M. (2015). A Guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for Psychological Experiments (Revised version: 2.0). Technical Report, 2nd version. Selective Attention & Awareness Laboratory (SAAL) Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, UK. URL: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-les/psych/saal/guide-electrodermal-activity.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), pp. 63-79. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
George, J. F., Tilley, P., & Giordano, G. (2014). Sender credibility and deception detection. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.027.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection. In: Brewer, N., & Williams, K. D. (eds.), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. The Guilford Press, New York City, pp. 43-92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2014). Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Communication Research, 40(1), pp. 54-72. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12019.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hart, C. L., Fillmore, D. G., & Griffith, J. D. (2009). Indirect detection of deception: Looking for change. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14(9), pp. 134-142.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Iacono, W. G. (2008). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: Problems using confessions to determine ground truth. Psychology and Behavior, 95(2), pp. 24-26. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kirchhübel, C., & Howard, D. M. (2013). Detecting suspicious behaviour using speech: Acoustic correlates of deceptive speech – An exploratory investigation. Applied Ergonomics, 44(5), pp. 694-702. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.04.016.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levine, T. R., Daiku, Y., & Masip, J. (2022). The number of senders and total judgments matter more than sample size in deception-detection experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), pp. 191-204. doi: 10.1177/1745691621990369.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Memon, A., & Higham, P. A. (1999). A review of the cognitive interview. Psychology Crime & Law, 5(1-2), pp. 177-196. doi: 10.1080/10683169908415000.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), pp. 340-372. doi: 10.1037/a0020518.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nunan, J., Stanier, I., Milne, R., Shawyer, A., & Walsh, D. (2020). Eliciting human intelligence: Police source handlers’ perceptions and experiences of rapport during covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) interactions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(4), pp. 511-537. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Palena, N., Caso, L., & Vrij, A. (2019). Detecting lies via a theme-selection strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, p. 2775. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02775.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Palmatier, J. J., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(1), pp. 3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Penttilä, N., Korpijaakko-Huuhka, A.-M., & Kent, R. D. (2018). Tavallista sujumattomuutta: Aikuisten puheen sujuvuuden kvantitatiivinen analyysi. Puhe ja kieli, 38(3), pp. 153-173. doi: 10.23997/pk.77384.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Koppen, P. J. (2012). Deception detection in police interrogations: Closing in on the context of criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), pp. 124-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.04.005.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verigin, B., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Zauzig, L. (2020). The interaction of truthful and deceptive information. Psychology Crime & Law, 26(4), pp. 367-383. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2019.1669596.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Vrij, A. (2016). Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection: A reply to Ten Brinke et al. (2015). Psychology Crime & Law, 22(9), pp. 915-920. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2016.1202249.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A. (2016). Baselining as a lie detection method. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), pp. 1112-1119. doi: 10.1002/acp.3288.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), pp. 239-263. doi: 10.1023/A:1006610329284.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Ennis, E., Farman, S., & Mann, S. (2010). People’s perceptions of their truthful and deceptive interactions in daily life. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, pp. 6-42.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Leal, S. (2022). How researchers can make verbal lie detection more attractive for practitioners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 30, pp. 383-396. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2035842.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), pp. 110-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, pp. 295-317. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), pp. 129-136. doi: 10.1177/2372732214548592.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling events in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), pp. 253-265. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walczyk, J. J., Igou, F. P., Dixon, A. P., & Tcholakian, T. (2013). Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: A review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, p. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. N., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, pp. 1-59. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Detecting deceit within a predominantly true statement using two parallel assessment methods: A pilot study

References

Paradigm

My account