Title: Drawings as an innovative and successful lie detection tool
Abstract: Applied Cognitive PsychologyVolume 24, Issue 4 p. 587-594 Research Article Drawings as an innovative and successful lie detection tool† Aldert Vrij, Corresponding Author Aldert Vrij [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKPsychology Department, University of Portsmouth, King Henry Building, King Henry 1 Street, Portsmouth PO1 2DY, UK.Search for more papers by this authorSharon Leal, Sharon Leal Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorSamantha Mann, Samantha Mann Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLara Warmelink, Lara Warmelink Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPar Anders Granhag, Par Anders Granhag Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorRonald P. Fisher, Ronald P. Fisher Department of Psychology, Florida International University, USASearch for more papers by this author Aldert Vrij, Corresponding Author Aldert Vrij [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKPsychology Department, University of Portsmouth, King Henry Building, King Henry 1 Street, Portsmouth PO1 2DY, UK.Search for more papers by this authorSharon Leal, Sharon Leal Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorSamantha Mann, Samantha Mann Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLara Warmelink, Lara Warmelink Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPar Anders Granhag, Par Anders Granhag Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorRonald P. Fisher, Ronald P. Fisher Department of Psychology, Florida International University, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 September 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1627Citations: 17 † This article was published online on 15 September 2009. An error was subsequently identified. This notice is included in the online and print versions to indicate that both have been corrected [17 February 2010]. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES Akehurst, L., & Vrij, A. (1999). Creating suspects in police interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 192–210. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgements. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., 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, 279–292. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 189–200. Köhnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G. R. Semin, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 257–282). London, UK: Sage Publications. Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the 'detection of the truth'. In P. A. Granhag, & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Masip, J., Sporer, S., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 11, 99–122. Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 1–47). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rosenfeld, J. P. (2002). Event-related potential in the detection of deception, malingering, and false memories. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 265–286). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F. D., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 2849–2853. 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. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3–41. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499–518. Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., et al. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 159–166. Citing Literature Volume24, Issue4May 2010Pages 587-594 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2009
Publication Date: 2009-09-15
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 98
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot