Deception detectionstate of the art and future prospects

Referencias bibliográficas

• Alder, K. (2007). The lie detectors: The history of an American obsession. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 3-12.
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilariño, M. (2016). Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 201-210.
• Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442.
• Blandón-Gitlin, I., Fenn, E., Masip, J., & Yoo, A. (2014). Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: Searching for cognitive mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 441-444.
• Blandón-Gitlin, I., López, R. M., Masip, J., & Fenn, E. (in press). Cognición, emoción y mentira: implicaciones para detectar el engaño [Cognition, emotion, and lying: Implications to detect deception]. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica. doi:10.1016/j.apj.2017.02.004
• Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
• Bull, R., Baron, H., Gudjonsson, G., Hampson, S., Rippon, G., & Vrij, A. (2004). A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of polygraphic deception detection. London, UK: British Psychological Society.
• Bunn, G. (2012). The truth machine: A social history of the lie detector. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Burgoon, J. K. (2015). When is deceptive message production more effortful than truth-telling? A baker’s dozen of moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1965.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.
• Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: Norton.
• Fenn, E., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., & Yoo, A. (2016). Minority status matters: The potential role of stereotype threat in criminal investigations using a cognitive load approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Fenn, E., McGuire, M., Langben, S., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2015). A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1298.
• Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2-18.
• Ganis, G. (2015). Deception detection using neuroimaging. In P.-A. Granhag, A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 105-121). Chichester, UK: Willey.
• Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the scanner: Covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage, 55, 312-319.
• Global Deception Research Team (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74.
• Granhag, P.-A., Hartwig, M., Mac Giolla, E., & Clemens, F. (2015). Suspects’ verbal counter-interrogation strategies: Towards an integrative model. In P.-A. Granhag, A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 293-313). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Granhag, P.-A., & Mac Giolla, E. (2014). Preventing future crimes. Identifying markers of true and false intent. European Psychologist, 19, 195-206.
• Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643-659.
• Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Lafferty, M., & Nahari, G. (2017). Insurance based lie detection: Enhancing the verifiability approach with a model statement component. Acta Psychologica, 174, 1-8.
• Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 307-342.
• Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (in press). Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of Criteria- based Content Analysis. Psychological Assessment. doi:10.1037/pas0000426
• Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43, 283-343.
• Honts, C. R. (2014). Countermeasures and credibility assessment. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 131-158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Iacono, W. G. (1995). Offender testimony: Detection of deception and guilty knowledge. In N. Brewer & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and policing (pp. 155-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Iacono, W. G. (2015). Forensic application of event-related potentials to detect guilty knowledge. In P.-A. Granhag, A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 81-103). Chichester, UK: Willey.
• Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
• Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why suspects waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221.
• Kleinmuntz, B., & Szucko, J. J. (1984). Lie detection in ancient and modern times. American Psychologist, 39, 766-776.
• Langleben, D. D., Hakun, J. G., Seelig, D., Wang, A.-L., Ruparel, K., Bilker, W. B., & Gur, R. C. (2016). Polygraph and functional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection: A controlled blind comparison using the concealed information test. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77, 1372-1380.
• Leo, R. (2009). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT). A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378-392.
• Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Shamash, B., & Granhag, P.-A. (2016). Countermeasures against the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Effects on suspects’ strategies. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13, 131-147.
• Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood. Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
• MacKay-Brandt, A. (2011). Orienting response. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical psychology (pp. 1830-1831). New York, NY: Springer.
• Manzanero, A. L., Alemany, A., Recio, M., Vallet, R., & Aróztegui, J. (2015). Evaluating the credibility of statements given by persons with intellectual disability. Anales de Psicología, 31, 338-344.
• Masip, J., Alonso, H., Herrero, C., & Garrido, E. (2016). Experienced and novice officers’ Generalized Communication Suspicion and veracity judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 169-181.
• Masip, J., Blandón-Gitlin, I., de la Riva, C., & Herrero, C. (2016). An empirical test of the decision to lie component of the Activation- Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT). Acta Psychologica, 169, 45-55.
• Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2013). “What would you say if you were guilty?” Suspects’ strategies during a hypothetical Behavior Analysis Interview concerning a serious crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 60-70.
• Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2015). Police detection of deception: Beliefs about behavioral cues to deception are strong even though contextual evidence is more useful. Journal of Communication, 65, 125-145.
• Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the Reality Monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 99-122.
• Meijer, E. H., & Verschuere, B. (2015). The polygraph: Current practice and new approaches. In P.-A. Granhag, A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 59-80). Chichester, UK: Willey.
• Meijer, E. H., Verschuere, B., Gamer, M., Merckelbach, H., & Ben- Shakhar, G. (2016). Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty. Psychophysiology, 53, 593-604.
• Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014a). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 227-239.
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 122-128.
• National Research Council. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Oberlander, V., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 440-457.
• Ogawa, T., Matsuda, I., Tsuneoka, M., & Verschuere, B. (2015). The Concealed Information Test in the laboratory versus Japanese field practice: Bridging the scientist-practitioner gap. Archives of Forensic Psychology, 1(2), 16-27.
• Ormerod, T. C., & Dando, C. (2014). Finding a needle in a haystack: Toward a psychologically informed method for aviation security screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 76-84.
• Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, S. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144-157.
• Raskin, D. C. (1989). Polygraph techniques for the detection of deception. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 247-296). New York, NY: Springer.
• Raskin, D. C., & Esplin, P. W. (1991). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content-analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291.
• Reinhard, M.-A., Scharmach, M., & Sporer, S. L. (2012). Situational familiarity, efficacy expectations, and the process of credibility attribution. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 107-127.
• Reinhard, M.-A., Sporer, S. L., Scharmach, M., & Marksteiner, T. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467-484.
• Rosenfeld, J. P. (2011). P300 in detecting concealed information. In B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar & E. Meijer (Eds.), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 63- 89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenfeld, J. P., Hu, X., Labkovsky, E., Meixner, J., & Winograd, M.R. (2013). Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300- based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 118-134.
• Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., & Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41, 205-219
• Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169.
• Smith, M. E., Hancock, J. T., Reynolds, L., & Birnholtz, J. (2014). Everyday deception or a few prolific liars? The prevalence of lies in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 220-227.
• Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and the detection of deception. In P.-A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64-102). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Sporer, S. L. (2016). Deception and cognitive load: Expanding our horizon with a working memory model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 420.
• Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421- 446.
• Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.
• Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based Statement Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Springer.
• Street, C. N. H. (2015). ALIED: Humans as adaptive lie detectors. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 335-343.
• Street, C. N. H., Bischof, W. F., Vadillo, M. A., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Inferring others’ hidden thoughts: Smart guesses in a low diagnostic world. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 539-549.
• Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Van Bockstaele, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428-453.
• Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1-26.
• Terol, O., Álvarez, M., Melgar, N., & Manzanero, A. (2014). Detección de información oculta mediante potenciales relacionados con eventos [Detection of concealed information using event-related potentials]. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 24, 49-55.
• Trovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29, 848-881.
• Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of Statement Reality Analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 101-133). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
• Van Swol, L. M. (2014). Questioning the assumptions of deception research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 411-416.
• Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (Eds.) (2011). Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Verschuere, B., & Meijer, E. (2014). What’s on your mind? Recent advances in memory detection using the Concealed Information Test. European Psychologist, 19, 162-171.
• Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? Credibility assessment 25 years after Steller and Köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, 19, 207-220.
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit. Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 302-307.
• Vrij, A., Fisher, R., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 1-21.
• Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Blank, H., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2016). A cognitive approach to elicit verbal and nonverbal cues to deceit. In J. W. Van Prooijen, & P. A. M. Van Lange (Eds.), Cheating, corruption, and concealment (pp. 284-310). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Vrij, A., & Granhag, P.-A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the question asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110-117.
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P.-A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89-121.
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., & Brankaert, F. (2015). Translating theory into practice: Evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 110-120.
• Walczyk, J. J., Griffith, D. A., Yates, R., Visconte, S. R., Simoneaux, B., & Harris, L. L. (2012). Lie detection by inducing cognitive load. Eye movements and other cues to the false answers of “witnesses” to crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 887-909.
• Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, F. (2014). A social- cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation-decision- construction- action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22-36.
• Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 14, pp. 1-60). New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Bond, C. F., Jr. Howard, A. R., Hutchison, J. L., & Masip, J. (2013). Overlooking the obvious: Incentives to lie. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 212-221.
• Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144.