Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: richness in detail as a test case

References

• Ben-Shakhar, G. (1985). Standardization within individuals: A simple method to neutralize individual differences in psychophysiological responsivity. Psychophysiology, 22, 292–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). Clinical judgment and decision-making in CQT-polygraphy. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26, 232–240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bockstaele, M. (2008). Scientific content analysis (SCAN). Een nutting instrument by verhoren? In L. Smets & A. Vrij (Eds.), Het analyseren van de geloofwaardigheid van verhoren (pp. 105–156). Brussels: Politeia.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014). Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: Criteria‐based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 79–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E., & Tanner, R. J. (2007). Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 240–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmel, D., Dayan, E., Naveh, A., Raveh, O., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2003). Estimating the validity of the guilty knowledge test from simulated experiments: The external validity of Mock crime studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 261–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll, L. N. (1994). A validity assessment of written statements from suspects in criminal investigations using the SCAN technique. Police Studies, 17, 77–88.
   Google Scholar
• Glicksohn, J. (1993–1994). Rating the incidence of an altered state of consciousness as a function of the rater’s own absorption score. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13, 225–228.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2000). Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 197–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 257–282). London: Great Britain: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lacey, J. I., & Lacey, B. C. (1958). Verification and extension of the principle of autonomic response-stereotypy. The American Journal of Psychology, 71, 50–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2015). You cannot hide your telephone lies: Priming as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 129–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Exploring liars’ strategies for creating deceptive reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 141–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York, NY: Plenum Trade.
   Google Scholar
• Masip, J., Alonso, H., Garrido, E., & Anton, C. (2005). Generalized communicative suspicion (GCS) among police officers: Accounting for the investigator bias effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1046–1066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merckelbach, H. (2004). Telling a good story: Fantasy proneness and the quality of fabricated memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1371–1382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G. (2012). Elaborations on credibility judgments by professional lie detectors and laypersons: Strategies of judgment and justification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 567–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G. (2016). When the long road is the shortcut: A comparison between two coding methods for content-based lie-detection tools. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & BenShakhar, G. (2011). Psychophysiological and behavioral measures for detecting concealed information: The role of memory for crime details. Psychophysiology, 48, 733–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & Ben‐Shakhar, G. (2013). Primacy effect in credibility judgements: The vulnerability of verbal cues to biased interpretations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 247–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Glicksohn, J., & Nachson, I. (2010). Credibility judgments of narratives. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 319–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & Pazuelo, M. (2015). Telling a convincing story: Richness in detail as a function of gender and information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 363–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality monitoring. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 573–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2015). Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the crime scenario. Psychology, Crime and Law, 21, 987–999.
   Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? Scan as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
   Google Scholar
• Sapir, A. (1987/2000). The LSI course on scientific content analysis (SCAN). Phoenix, ZA: Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation.
   Google Scholar
• Schelleman-Offermans, K., & Merckelbach, H. (2010). Fantasy proneness as a confounder of verbal lie detection tools. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 247–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (2002). Complainant sexual history evidence: Its impact on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 252–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. (2001). Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the scientific content analysis technique (SCAN). Police research series paper 135. London: UK Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., & Sharman, S. J. (2006). Should I believe this? Reality monitoring of accounts of self-experienced and invented recent and distant autobiographical events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 837–854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of evidence. Stockholm, Sweden: Beckmans.
   Google Scholar
• Trovillo, P. V. (1939). A history of lie detection, I. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29, 848–881.
   Google Scholar
• Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27–56). Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 261–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 113–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899–909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. B. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 159–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar