A positive, collaborative, and theoretically-based approach to improving deception detection

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 122-123

  Evans, Jacqueline R ^a   Houston, Kate A ^b   Meissner, Christian A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862191840     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.04.007     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Dunbar K., Blanchette I. The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2001, 5:334-339.
2. Evans J.R., Meissner C.A., Brandon S.E., Russano M.B., Kleinman S.M. Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to improving interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law 2010, 38:215-249.
3. Faigman D.L. Evidentiary incommensurability: A preliminary exploration of the problem of reasoning from general scientific data to individualized legal decision-making. Brooklyn Law Review 2010, 75:1115-1136.
4. Lane S.M., Meissner C.A. A middle road approach to bridging the basic-applied divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22:779-787. 10.1002/acp.1482.
5. Meissner C.A., Hartwig M., Russano M.B. The need for a positive psychological approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law & Human Behavior 2010, 34:43-45. 10.1007/s10979-009-9205-9.
6. Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, in press.
7. Meissner C.A., Russano M.B., Horgan A.J. The diagnostic efficacy of inquisitorial interrogative methods and their corollary benefit for credibility assessment. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society conference 2010.
8. Meissner C.A., Russano M.B., Narchet F.M. The importance of a laboratory science for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence. Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice and policy recommendations 2010, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. G.D. Lassiter, C.A. Meissner (Eds.).
9. Narchet F.M., Meissner C.A., Russano M.B. Modeling the influence of investigator bias on true and false confession. Law & Human Behavior 2011, 35:452-456. 10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x.
10. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement 1999, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
11. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities 2008, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, NY, USA. 2nd ed.
12. Vrij A., Granhag P.A. Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2012, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.
13. Vrij A., Granhag P.A., Porter S. Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2010, 11:89-121. 10.1177/1529100610390861.
14. Wells G., Small M., Penrod S., Malpass R., Fulero S., Brimacombe C. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law & Human Behavior 1998, 22:603-647. 10.1023/A:1025750605807.