Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. DePaulo, K. Charlton, Harris Cooper, James Lindsay, Laura Muhlenbruck (1997)
The Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of DeceptionPersonality and Social Psychology Review, 1
D. Stoff, J. Breiling, J. Maser (1997)
Handbook of antisocial behavior
B. DePaulo, R. Pfeifer (1986)
On-the-Job Experience and Skill at Detecting Deception1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16
P. Ekman, Maureen O’Sullivan, Wallace Friesen, K. Scherer (1991)
Invited article: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceitJournal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15
R. Ruback, Charles Hopper (1986)
Decision making by parole interviewers: The effect of case and interview factorsLaw and Human Behavior, 10
B. DePaulo, Susan Kirkendol, John Tang, T. O'Brien (1988)
The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensionsJournal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12
A. Memon, A. Vrij, R. Bull (2000)
Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility
R. Ruback (1981)
Perceived Honesty in the Parole InterviewPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7
A. Vrij (2000)
Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice
P. Ekman (1989)
Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie.
S. Porter, J. Yuille (1996)
The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation contextLaw and Human Behavior, 20
P. Ekman, M. O'Sullivan, W. V. Friesen, K. R. Scherer (1991)
Face, voice, and body in detecting deceitJournal of Non-Verbal Behavior, 15
B. DePaulo, Susan Kirkendol (1989)
The Motivational Impairment Effect in the Communication of Deception
The discrimination of deceitful , mistaken , and real memories for emotional events
B. M. DePaulo, R. L. Pfeifer (1986)
On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception and truthJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 16
L. Akehurst, Günter Köhnken, A. Vrij, R. Bull (1996)
Lay Persons' and Police Officers' Beliefs Regarding Deceptive BehaviourApplied Cognitive Psychology, 10
S. Porter (1996)
Without conscience or without active conscience? The etiology of psychopathy revisitedAggression and Violent Behavior, 1
P. Ekman, Maureen O’Sullivan (1991)
Who can catch a liar?The American psychologist, 46 9
S. Hart, R. Hare (1997)
Psychopathy: Assessment and association with criminal conduct.
S. Kassin, Christina Fong (1999)
“I'm Innocent!”: Effects of Training on Judgments of Truth and Deception in the Interrogation RoomLaw and Human Behavior, 23
R. Bull (1989)
Can Training Enhance the Detection of Deception
P. Ekman, Maureen O’Sullivan, M. Frank (1999)
A Few Can Catch a LiarPsychological Science, 10
S. Porter, J. Yuille (1994)
Credibility assessment of criminal suspects through statement analysis.Psychology Crime & Law, 1
Stephen Porter, J. Yuille, D. Lehman (1999)
The Nature of Real, Implanted, and Fabricated Memories for Emotional Childhood Events: Implications for the Recovered Memory DebateLaw and Human Behavior, 23
B. DePaulo, R. Rosenthal (1979)
Telling lies.Journal of personality and social psychology, 37 10
P. Ekman (1989)
Credibility assessment
K. Chwalisz (1999)
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF MALINGERING AND DECEPTION (2ND ED.)
R. Rogers (1988)
Clinical assessment of malingering and deception
M. Zuckerman, R. Koestner, Audrey Alton (1984)
Learning to detect deception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46
The ability of a group of Canadian federal parole officers to detect deception was investigated over the course of 2 days of lie detection training. On the first day of training, 32 officers judged the honesty of 12 (6 true, 6 fabricated) videotaped speakers describing personal experiences, half of which were judged before and half judged after training. On the second day, 5 weeks later, 20 of the original participants judged the honesty of another 12 videotapes (again, 6 pre- and 6 posttraining). To isolate factors relating to detection accuracy, three groups of undergraduate participants made judgments on the same 24 videotapes: (1) a feedback group, which received feedback on accuracy following each judgment, (2) a feedback + cue information group, which was given feedback and information on empirically based cues to deception, and (3) a control group, which did not receive feedback or cue information. Results indicated that at baseline all groups performed at or below chance levels. However, overall, all experimental groups (including the parole officers) became significantly better at detecting deception than the control group. By the final set of judgments, the parole officers were significantly more accurate (M = 76.7%) than their baseline performance (M = 40.4%) as well as significantly more accurate than the control group (M = 62.5%). The results indicate that detecting deceit is difficult, but training and feedback can enhance detection skills.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Dec 1, 2000
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.