Are Computers Effective Lie Detectors? A Meta-Analysis of Linguistic Cues to Deception

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 307-342

  Hauch, Valerie ^a   Blandón Gitlin, Iris ^b   Masip, Jaume ^c   Sporer, Siegfried L ^a  

^a JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA   (Spain)

Author keywords

computer program; detection of deception; linguistic cues; meta analysis

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; DECEPTION; EMOTION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; META ANALYSIS;

DECEPTION; EMOTIONS; HUMANS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84944035162     PISSN: 10888683     EISSN: 15327957     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1088868314556539     Document Type: Article

References (222)

1. N.Abe (2009). The neurobiology of deception: Evidence from neuroimaging and loss-of-function studies. Current Opinion in Neurology, 22, 594-600. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328332c3cf
2. N.Abe (2011). How the brain shapes deception: An integrated review of the literature. Neuroscientist, 17, 560-574. doi:10.1177/1073858410393359
3. N.AbeM.SuzukiE.MoriM.ItohT.Fujii (2007). Deceiving others: Distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 287-295. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.287
4. S.H.Adams (2002). Communication under stress: Indicators of veracity and deception in written narratives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
5. S.H.AdamsJ.P.Jarvis (2006). Indicators of veracity and deception: An analysis of written statements made to police. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13, 1-21. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v13i1.2
6. M.*AliT.Levine (2008). The language of truthful and deceptive denials and confessions. Communication Reports, 21, 82-91. doi:10.1080/08934210802381862
7. A.*Almela Sanchez-LafuenteR.Valencia-GarciaP.Cantos Gomez (2012). Detectando la mentira en lenguaje escrito [Detecting deception in written language]. Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural, 48, 65-72.
8. R.AnsarraK.ColwellC.Hiscock-AnismanA.HinesR.FleckL.ColeD.Belarde (2011). Augmenting ACID with affective details to assess credibility. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3, 141-158.
9. APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in Psychology. Why do we need them? What might they be?American Psychologist, 63, 839-851. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
10. J.BachenkoE.FitzpatrickM.Schonwetter (2008, August). Verification and implementation of language-based deception indicators in civil and criminal narratives. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 41-48). Manchester, UK: Coling 2008 Organizing Committee.
11. A.Baddeley (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
12. A.Baddeley (2006) Working memory: An overview. In S.Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13. H.P.Bahrick (1996). The relation between reproductive and reconstructive processing of memory content. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 19, 191. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00042151
14. H.P.BahrickL.K.HallS.A.Berger (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory for high school grades. Psychological Science, 7, 265-271. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00372.x
15. J.S.*BedwellS.GallagherS.N.WhittenS.M.Fiore (2011). Linguistic correlates of self in deceptive oral autobiographical narratives. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 547-555. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.001
16. H.-U.Bender (1987). Merkmalskombinationen in Aussagen [Criteria combinations in eyewitness statements]. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr.
17. V.Benussi (1914). Die Atmungssymptome der Lüge [Breathing symptoms of lying]. In E.Meumann (Ed.), Sammlung von Abhandlungen zur Psychologischen Pädagogik (Vol. 3, pp. 513-542). Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.
18. I.Blandón-GitlinI.FennJ.MasipA.Yoo (2014). Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: Searching for cognitive mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 441-444. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.004
19. C.F.BondB.M.DePaulo (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
20. G.D.*BondA.Y.Lee (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313-329. doi:10.1002/acp.1087
21. M.Borenstein (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H.CooperL.V.HarrisJ.C.Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 221-235). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
22. J.D.Brown (2012). Understanding the better than average effect: Motives (still) matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 209-219. doi:10.1177/0146167211432763
23. R.BrownJ.Kulik (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73-99. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X
24. J.Bruner (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
25. M.K.*Brunet (2009). Why bullying victims are not believed: Differentiating between children’s true and fabricated reports of stressful and non-stressful events (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/
26. M.K.BrunetA.D.EvansV.TalwarN.BalaR.C.LindsayK.Lee (2013). How children report true and fabricated stressful and non-stressful events. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 867-881. doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.750896
27. D.B.BullerJ.K.Burgoon (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 3, 203-242.
28. D.B.BullerJ.K.BurgoonA.BuslingJ.Roiger (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: The language of interpersonal deception. Communication Theory, 6, 268-289. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00129.x
29. G.C.Bunn (2012). The truth machine: A social history of lie detection. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. J.K.BurgoonJ.P.BlairT.QinJ.F.Nunamaker (2003). Detecting deception through linguistic analysis. In H.Chen (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer sciences, Vol. 2665. Intelligence and security informatics (pp. 91-101). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/3-540-44853-5_7
31. J.K.*BurgoonT.T.Qin (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 76-96. doi:10.1177/02619-27X05284482
32. R.ChandramouliX.ChenK.P.Subbalakshmi (2011). Psycho-linguistic statistical deception detection from text content (Report No. WO/2011/085108). Retrieved from http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2011085108
33. X.*Chen (2010). Psycho-linguistic forensic analysis of internet text data (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.
34. S.E.ChristD.C.Van EssenJ.M.WatsonL.E.BrubakerK.B.McDermott (2009). The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: Evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analysis. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1557-1566. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn189
35. N.T.ChurykC.-C.LeeD.Clinton (2008, October). Can we detect fraud earlier? A technique called content analysis raises the possibility. Strategic Finance. Available from www.thefreelibrary.com
36. R.B.CialdiniR.J.BordenA.ThorneM.R.WalkerS.FreemanR.L.Sloan (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366
37. M.J.CodyP.J.MarstonM.Foster (1984). Deception: Paralinguistic and verbal leakage. In R.N.Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 464-490). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
38. J.Cohen (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
39. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. College Board. (1976-1977). Student descriptive questionnaire. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
41. K.*ColwellC.K.HiscockA.Memon (2002). Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 287-300. doi:10.1002/acp.78
42. M.A.Conway (1990). Autobiographical memory: An introduction. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
43. H.Cooper (Ed.). (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
44. J.E.*Cooper (2008). Using natural language processing to identify the rhetoric of deception in business and competitive intelligence email communications (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3374690)
45. H.Cunningham (2002). GATE, a General Architecture for Text Engineering. Computers and the Humanities, 36, 223-254. doi:10.1023/A:1014348124664
46. R.L.DaftR.H.Lengel (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
47. E.DebeyB.VerschuereG.Crombez (2012). Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect. Acta Psychologica, 140, 133-141. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.03.004
48. B.M.DePaulo (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203-243. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.203
49. B.M.DePauloS.E.Kirkendol (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In J.C.Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/BF00987487
50. B.M.DePauloK.LanierT.Davis (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096-1103. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.45.5.1096
51. B.M.DePauloJ.J.LindsayB.E.MaloneL.MuhlenbruckK.CharltonH.Cooper (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
52. B.M.DePauloW.L.Morris (2004). Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. In P.A.GranhagL.A.Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071
53. D.*DerrickT.MeservyJ.BurgoonJ.Nunamaker (2012, January). An experimental agent for detecting deceit in chat-based communication. In M.JensenT.MeservyJ.BurgoonJ.Nunamaker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Rapid Screening Technologies, Deception Detection and Credibility Assessment Symposium. Grand Wailea, Maui, HI. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173793
54. R.Dilmon (2009). Between thinking and speaking: Linguistic tools for detecting a fabrication. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1152-1170. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.032
55. E.F.Dulaney (1982). Changes in language behavior as a function of veracity. Human Communication Research, 9, 75-82. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00684.x
56. N.D.DuranS.A.CrossleyC.HallP.M.McCarthyD.S.McNamara (2009). Expanding a catalogue of deceptive linguistic features with NLP technologies. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Flairs Conference (pp. 243-248). Sanibel Island, FL: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
57. N.D.*DuranC.HallP.M.McCarthyD.S.McNamara (2010). The linguistic correlates of conversational deception: Comparing natural language processing technologies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 439-462. doi:10.1017/S0142716410000068
58. M.T.DzindoletL.G.Pierce (2004). A computerized text analysis can detect deception. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th annual meeting (pp. 635-639). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.1177/154193120404800377
59. M.T.*DzindoletL.G.Pierce (2005). Using a linguistic analysis tool to detect deception. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th annual meeting (pp. 563-567). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.1177/154193120504900374
60. P.Ekman (1988). Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new findings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 163-176. doi:10.1007/BF00987486
61. P.Ekman (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
62. A.L.Elkins (2011). Vocalic markers of deception and cognitive dissonance for automated emotion detection systems (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona
63. S.ElntibG.H.WagstaffJ.M.Wheatcroft (2014). The role of account length in detecting deception in written and orally produces autobiographical accounts using reality monitoring. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jip.1420
64. F.Enos (2009). Detecting deception in speech (Doctoral dissertation). Available from http://www.cs.columbia.edu/. (UMI No. 3348430)
65. F.EnosE.ShribergyM.GraciarenaJ.HirschbergA.Stolcke (2007, August). Detecting deception using critical segments. Proceedings of Interspeech, Antwerpen, Belgium.
66. A.D.*EvansM.K.BrunetV.TalwarN.BalaR.C.L.LindsayK.Lee (2012). The effects of repetition on children’s true and false reports. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 517-529. doi:10.1080/13218719.2011.615808
67. J.L.Fleiss (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
68. T.FornaciariM.Poesio (2011, June). Lexical vs. surface features in deceptive language analysis. In A.WynerK.Branting (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICAIL 2011 Workshop: Applying Human Language Technology to the Law (pp. 2-8). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
69. S.Freud (1905). Bruchstück einer Hysterieanalyse [Fragments of an analysis of a case of hysteria] (Collected papers). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Reprinted in 1959)
70. C.M.Fuller (2008). High-stakes, real-world deception: An examination of the process of deception and deception detection using linguistic-based cues (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/
71. C.M.*FullerD.P.BirosJ.K.BurgoonM.AdkinsD.P.Twitchell (2006). An analysis of text-based deception detection tools. In Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 3465-3472). Acapulco, Mexico: AIS Electronic Library.
72. C.M.FullerD.P.BirosD.Delen (2008, January). Exploration of feature selection and advanced classification models for high-stakes deception detection. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-8). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2008.158
73. C.M.FullerD.P.BirosD.Delen (2011). An investigation of data and text mining methods for real world deception detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 8392-8398. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.032
74. C.M.FullerD.P.BirosR.L.Wilson (2009). Decision support for determining veracity via linguistic-based cues. Decision Support Systems, 46, 695-703. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.001
75. M.GamerT.BauermannP.StoeterG.Vosse (2008). Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 1287-1301. doi:10.1002/hbm.20343
76. Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74. doi:10.1080/14789940412331337353
77. V.A.Gombos (2006). The cognition of deception: The role of executive processes in producing lies. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 197-214. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.3.197-214
78. M.GraciarenaE.ShribergA.StolckeF.EnosJ.HirschbergS.Kajarekar (2006, May). Combining prosodic, lexical and cepstral systems for deceptive speech detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 1033-1036). Toulouse, France: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2006.1660200
79. A.C.GraesserD.S.McNamaraM.LouwerseZ.Cai (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564
80. P.A.GranhagL.A.StrömwallC.Olsson (2001, June). Fact or fiction? Adults’s ability to assess children’s veracity. Paper presented at the 11th European Conference on Psychology and Law, Lisbon, Portugal.
81. J.B.GreenhouseS.Iyengar (2009). Handling missing data. In H.CooperL.V.HedgesJ.C.Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 417-433). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
82. A.G.Greenwald (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603
83. D.GrubinL.Madsen (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16, 357-369.
84. S.Gupta (2007). Modelling deception detection in text (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/922
85. J.T.HancockL.E.CurryS.GoorhaM.Woodworth (2004, July). Lies in conversation: An examination of deception using automated linguistic analysis. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 534-540). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. doi:10.1.1.87.9371
86. J.T.HancockL.E.CurryS.GoorhaM.Woodworth (2005, January). Automated linguistic analysis of deceptive and truthful synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.111
87. J.T.*HancockL.E.CurryS.GoorhaM.Woodworth (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23. doi:10.1080/01638530701739181
88. J.T.HancockM.Woodworth (2013). An “eye” for an “I”: The challenges and opportunities for spotting credibility in a digital world. In B.S.CooperD.GrieselM.Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 325-340). New York, NY: Springer.
89. J.T.HancockM.WoodworthS.Goorha (2010). See no evil: The effect of communication medium and motivation on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, 327-336. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9169-7
90. M.HartwigP.A.GranhagL.A.Strömwall (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 213-227. doi:10.1080/10683160600750264
91. L.V.Hedges (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107
92. L.V.Hedges (1982). Estimation of effect size from series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490-499. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.490
93. L.V.HedgesI.Olkin (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
94. J.P.T.HigginsS.G.Thompson (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
95. A.HinesK.ColwellC.Hiscock-AnismanE.GarrettR.AnsarraL.Montalvo (2010). Impression management strategies of deceivers and honest reporters in an investigative interview. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 73-90.
96. J.HirschbergS.BeusJ.M.BrenierF.EnosS.FriedmanS.GilmanA.. Stolcke (2005, September). Distinguishing deceptive from non-deceptive speech. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Interspeech (pp. 1833-1836). Lisboa, Portugal. doi:10.1.1.59.8634
97. M.W.HorowitzJ.B.Newman (1964). Spoken and written expression: An experimental analysis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 640-647. doi:10.1037/h0048589
98. S.L.*HumpherysK.C.MoffittM.B.BurnsJ.K.BurgoonW.F.Felix (2011). Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis. Decision Support Systems, 50, 585-594. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.009
99. M.L.*JensenE.BessarabovaB.AdameJ.BurgoonS.M.Slowik (2011). Deceptive language by innocent and guilty criminal suspects: The influence of dominance, question, and guilt on interview responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 357-375. doi:10.1177/0261927X11416201
100. M.L.JensenJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2010). Judging the credibility of information gathered from face-to-face interactions. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 2, Article 3. doi:10.1145/1805286.1805289
101. M.L.JensenP.B.LowryJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2010). Technology dominance in complex decision making: The case of aided credibility assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 175-201. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270108
102. M.L.JensenP.B.LowryJ.L.Jenkins (2011). Effects of automated and participative decision support in computer-aided credibility assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 201-233. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222280107
103. M.L.JensenT.O.MeservyJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2010). Automatic, multimodal evaluation of human interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, 367-389. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9171-0
104. M.K.JohnsonJ.C.BushK.J.Mitchell (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people’s memories. Social Cognition, 16, 199-224. doi:10.1521/soco.1998.16.2.199
105. M.K.JohnsonS.HashtroudiD.S.Lindsay (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.114.1.3
106. M.K.JohnsonC.L.Raye (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.88.1.67
107. M.K.JohnsonA.G.Suengas (1989). Reality monitoring judgments of other people’s memories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 107-110.
108. R.JohnsonJ.BarnhardtJ.Xhu (2004). The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding. Neuropsychologia, 42, 878-901. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.005
109. P.S.KeilaD.B.Skillicorn (2005). Detecting unusual and deceptive communication in email (ISSN-0836-0227-.2005-498) (External Tech. Rep.). School of Computing, Queen’s University. Available from http://research.cs.queensu.ca/
110. R.T.Kellogg (2007). Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent?The American Journal of Psychology, 120, 415-428. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20445412
111. M.L.KnappR.P.HartH.S.Dennis (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Communication Research, 1, 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1974.tb00250.x
112. J.*KoyanagiI.Blandón-Gitlin (2011, March). Analysis of children’s deception with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count approach. Poster session presented at the 4th International Congress on Psychology and Law/2011 annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Miami, FL.
113. E.*Krackow (2010). Narratives distinguish experienced from imagined childhood events. The American Journal of Psychology, 123, 71-80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.1.0071
114. D.Kuiken (1981). Nonimmediate language style and inconsistency between private and expressed evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 183-196. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(81)90013-5
115. J.D.LaneD.M.Wegner (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237-253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.237
116. S.LealA.VrijL.WarmelinkZ.VernhamR.P.Fisher (2013). You cannot hide your telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12017
117. C.-C.*LeeR.B.WelkerM.B.Odom (2009). Features of computer-mediated, text-based messages that support automatable, linguistics-based indicators for deception detection. Journal of Information Systems, 23, 5-24. doi:10.2308/jis.2009.23.1.24
118. H.C.LenchS.A.FloresS.W.Bench (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 834-855. doi:10.1037/a0024244
119. T.R.LevineK.J.AsadaC.Carpenter (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated in meta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against nonsignificant findings. Communication Monographs, 76, 286-302. doi:10.1080/03637750903074685
120. T.R.LevineS.A.McCornack (2001). Behavioral adaptation, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 471-502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00790.x
121. T.R.LevineH.S.ParkS.A.McCornack (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.”Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144. doi:10.1080/03637759909376468
122. M.W.LipseyD.B.Wilson (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
123. X.*LiuJ.HancockG.ZhangR.XuD.MarkowitzN.Bazarova (2012, January). Exploring linguistic features for deception detection in unstructured text. In M.JensenT.MeservyJ.BurgoonJ.Nunamaker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Rapid Screening Technologies, Deception Detection and Credibility Assessment Symposium. Grand Wilea, HI.
124. J.*MasipM.BethencourtG.LucasM.Sánchez-San SegundoC.Herrero (2012). Deception detection from written accounts. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 103-111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00931.x
125. J.MasipE.GarridoC.Herrero (2003). Facial appearance and judgments of credibility: The effects of facial babyishness and age on statement credibility. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 269-311.
126. J.MasipC.Herrero (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. doi:10.1002/acp.2872
127. J.MasipS.L.SporerE.GarridoC.Herrero (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 99-122. doi:10.1080/10683160410001726356
128. D.S.McNamaraA.C.Graesser (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P.M.McCarthyC.Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 188-205). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8
129. A.Mehrabian (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
130. A.MehrabianM.Wiener (1966). Non-immediacy between communicator and object of communication in a verbal message: Application to inference of attitudes. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 420-425. doi:10.1037/h0023813
131. C.A.MeissnerS.M.Kassin (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 469-480. doi:10.1023/A:1020278620751
132. R.MihalceaC.Strappavara (2009, August). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In K.-Y.SuJ.SuJ.Wiebe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing Conference Short Papers (pp. 309-312). Suntec, Singapore: ACL.
133. C.A.*MorganK.ColwellG.A.Hazlett (2011). Efficacy of forensic statement analysis in distinguishing truthful from deceptive eyewitness accounts of highly stressful events. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 1227-1234. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01896.x
134. C.A.*MorganA.MisharaJ.ChristianG.A.Hazlett (2008, August). Detecting deception through automated analysis of translated speech: Credibility assessment of Arabic-speaking interviewees. Journal of Intelligence Community Research and Development, 1-22.
135. C.A.MorganY.RabinowitzJ.ChristianG.A.Hazlett (2009, January). Detecting deception in Vietnamese: Efficacy of forensic statement analysis when interviewing via an interpreter. Journal of Intelligence Community Research and Development, 1-16.
136. C.A.MorganG.SteffianW.ClarkV.CoricG.A.Hazlett (2008). Efficacy of verbal and global judgment cues in the detection of deception in persons interviewed via an interpreter. Unpublished manuscript.
137. U.Neisser (1982). Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
138. M.L.*NewmanJ.W.PennebakerD.S.BerryJ.M.Richards (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675. doi:10.1177/0146167203029005010
139. J.F.NunamakerJ.K.BurgoonN.W.TwymanJ.G.ProudfootR.SchuetzlerJ.S.Giboney (2012, January). Establishing a foundation for automated human credibility screening. In IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics. Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/222874/1/azu_etd_12045_sip1_m.pdf
140. M.*OttY.ChoiC.CardieJ.T.Hancock (2011, June). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 309-319). Portland, Oregon: Omnipress Incompany.
141. M.O’Sullivan (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1316-1327. doi:10.1177/0146167203254610
142. J.W.PennebakerC.H.Chew (1985). Behavioral inhibition and electrodermal activity during deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1427-1433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1427
143. J.W.PennebakerM.E.FrancisR.J.Booth (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
144. T.D.Pigott (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
145. D.B.PillemerA.B.DesrochersC.M.Ebanks (1998). Remembering the past in the present: Verb tense shifts in autobiographical memory narratives. In C.P.ThompsonD.J.HerrmannD.BruceJ.D.ReadD.G.PayneM.P.Toglia (Eds.), Autobiographical memory: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 145-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
146. T.QinJ.Burgoon (2007, May). An investigation of heuristics of human judgments in detecting deception and potential implications in countering social engineering. In G.MuresanT.AltiokB.MelamedD.Zeng (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 152-159). New Brunswick, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ISI.2007.379548
147. T.*QinJ.BurgoonJ.P.BlairJ.F.Nunamaker (2005, January). Modality effects in deception detection and applications in automatic deception detection. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.436
148. T.QinJ.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2004, January). An exploratory study on promising cues in deception detection and application of decision tree. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 23-32). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265083
149. M.-A.ReinhardS.L.SporerM.ScharmachT.Marksteiner (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467-484. doi:10.1037/a0023726
150. F.D.RichardC.F.BondJ.J.Stokes-Zoota (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
151. T.B.RogersN.A.KuiperW.S.Kirker (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677
152. H.R.RothsteinA.J.SuttonM.Borenstein (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch1
153. K.*RoweI.Blandón-Gitlin (2008, March). Discriminating true, suggested, and fabricated statements with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count approach. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.
154. V.L.RubinN.Conroy (2012, March). Discerning truth from deception: Human judgments of automation efforts. First Monday, 17(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3933/3170
155. M.SauerlandS.L.Sporer (2011). Written vs. spoken eyewitness accounts: Does modality of testing matter?Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 846-857. doi:10.1002/bsl.1013
156. J.R.*Schafer (2007). Grammatical differences between truthful and deceptive narratives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.
157. R.SchankR.Abelson (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
158. K.*Schelleman-OffermansH.Merckelbach (2010). Fantasy proneness as a confounder of verbal lie detection tools. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 247-260. doi:10.1002/jip.121
159. W.R.ShadishC.K.Haddock (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H.CooperL.V.HarrisJ.C.Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 257-277). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
160. D.B.SkillicornC.Leuprecht (2011). Deception in speeches of candidates for public office. Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/1024985/filename/2014paper_ready_to_go.pdf
161. N.J.SlameckaP.Graf (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.4.6.592
162. S.L.Sporer (1997). The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<373::AID-ACP461>3.0.CO;2-0
163. S.L.Sporer (1998, March). Detecting deception with the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales (ARJS): Theoretical development, reliability and validity. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in Redondo Beach, CA.
164. S.L.Sporer (2004). Reality monitoring and the detection of deception. In P.-A.GranhagL.Stromwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 64-102). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071
165. S.L.Sporer (2008). Lessons from the origins of eyewitness testimony research in Europe. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 737-757. doi:10.1002/acp.1479
166. S.L.Sporer (2012). Making the subjective objective? Computer-assisted quantification of qualitative content cues to deception. In European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Deception Detection (pp. 78-85). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
167. S.L.Sporer (2013, March). Content-criteria to detect deception: Methodological pitfalls and solutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Portland, OR.
168. S.L.SporerL.D.Cohn (2011). Meta-analysis. In B.D.RosenfeldS.D.Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 43-62). New York, NY: Wiley.
169. S.L.SporerB.Küpper (1995). Realitaetsueberwachung und die Beurteilung des Wahrheitsgehaltes von Erzaehlungen: Eine experimentelle Studie [Reality monitoring and the judgment of credibility of stories: An experimental investigation]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 26, 173-193.
170. S.L.SporerB.Schwandt (2006). Paraverbal correlates of deception: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446. doi:10.1002/acp.1190
171. S.L.SporerB.Schwandt (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
172. S.L.SporerS.J.Sharman (2006). Should I believe this? Reality monitoring of accounts of self-experienced and invented recent and distant autobiographical events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 985-1001. doi:10.1002/acp1234
173. S.L.SporerA.Walther (2006, March). Truth detection by content cues: General vs. specific questions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in Petersburg, FL.
174. M.StellerG.Köhnken (1989). Criteria-based statement analysis. In D.C.Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods for investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
175. L.A.StrömwallM.HartwigP.A.Granhag (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behavior and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 207-219. doi:10.1080/10683160512331331328
176. J.A.*Suckle-NelsonK.ColwellC.Hiscock-AnismanS.FlorenceK.E.YouschakA.Duarte (2010). Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): Replication and gender differences. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 23-30.
177. A.J.Sutton (2009). Publication bias. In H.CooperL.V.HarrisJ.C.Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 435-452). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
178. Y.TausczikJ.W.Pennebaker (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54. doi:10.1177/0261927X09351676
179. P.J.TaylorS.TomblinS.M.ConchieT.Menacere (2011, March). Verbal indicators of deception in some cultures are indicators of truth in others. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress on Psychology and Law and the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Miami, FL.
180. L.*ten BrinkeS.Porter (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioural consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 469-477. doi:10.1037/h0093929
181. C.L.TomaJ.T.Hancock (2010, February). Reading between the lines: Linguistic cues to deception in online dating profiles. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 5-8). Savannah, GA. doi:10.1145/17-18918.1718921
182. C.L.TomaJ.T.Hancock (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78-97. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
183. D.P.Twitchell (2005). Automated analysis techniques for online conversations with application in deception detection (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/194997
184. D.P.TwitchellD.P.BirosM.AdkinsN.ForsgrenJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2006, January). Automated determination of the veracity of interview statements from people of interest to an operational security force. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-6). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2006.70
185. D.P.TwitchellJ.F.NunamakerJ.K.Burgoon (2004). Using speech act profiling for deception detection. In H.Chen (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer sciences, Vol. 3073. Intelligence and security informatics (pp. 403-410). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
186. L.M.*Van SwolM.T.BraunD.Malhotra (2012). Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omissions, and truths. Discourse Processes, 49, 79-106. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.633331
187. A.Vrij (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3
188. A.Vrij (2008a). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
189. A.Vrij (2008b). Nonverbal dominance versus verbal accuracy in lie detection: A plea to change police practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1323-1336. doi:10.1177/009-3854808321530
190. A.VrijL.AkehurstR.SoukaraR.Bull (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in adults and children. Human Communication Research, 30, 8-41. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00723.x
191. A.VrijK.EdwardK.P.RobertsR.Bull (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239-263. doi:10.1023/A:1006610329284
192. A.VrijP.A.Granhag (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110-117. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004
193. A.VrijS.MannS.KristenR.P.Fisher (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499-518. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9066-4
194. A.VrijS.MannS.LealP.A.Granhag (2010). Getting into the minds of pairs of liars and truth-tellers: An examination of their strategies. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 17-22. doi:10.2174/1874917801003010017
195. H.WagnerK.Pease (1976). The verbal communication of inconsistency between attitudes held and attitudes expressed. Journal of Personality, 44, 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00580.x
196. J.J.WalczykL.L.HarrisT.K.DuckD.Mulay (2014). A social-cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation-decision-construction-action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22-36. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.03.001
197. J.J.WalczykF.P.IgouA.P.DixonT.Tcholakian (2013). Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: A review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 14, 1-13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014
198. J.J.WalczykK.T.MahoneyD.DoverspikeD.A.Griffith-Ross (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 33-49. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8
199. J.J.WalczykJ.P.SchwartzR.CliftonB.AdamsM.WeiP.Zha (2005). Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141-170. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x
200. W.R.WalkerJ.J.Skowronski (2009). The fading affect bias: But what the hell is it for?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1122-1136. doi:10.1002/acp.1614
201. W.R.WalkerJ.J.SkowronskiC.P.Thompson (2003). Life is pleasant and memory helps to keep it that way. Review of General Psychology, 7, 203-210. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203
202. W.R.WalkerR.J.VoglC.P.Thompson (1997). Autobiographical memory: Unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 399-413. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<399::AID-ACP-462>3.0.CO;2-E
203. K.W.Watson (1981). Oral and written linguistic indices of deception during employment interviews (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
204. M.WertheimerJ.Klein (1904). Psychologische Tatbestandsdiagnostik [Psychological assessment of facts about an event]. Archiv für Kriminologie, Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, 15, 72-113.
205. M.WienerA.Mehrabian (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
206. S.M.*WilliamsV.TalwarR.C.LindsayN.C.BalaK.Lee (2012). Is the truth in your words? Distinguishing children’s deceptive and truthful statements. Journal of Criminology, 2014, Article 547519. doi:10.1155/2014/547519
207. D.B.Wilson (2002). Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html
208. L.*Zhou (2005). An empirical investigation of deception behavior in instant messaging. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 147-160. doi:10.1109/TPC.2005.849652
209. L.ZhouQ.E.BookerD.Zhang (2002). ROD: Towards rapid ontology development for underdeveloped domains. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 957-965). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2002.994046
210. L.*ZhouJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.NunamakerD.Twitchell (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81-106. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011944.62889.6f
211. L.ZhouJ.K.BurgoonD.P.TwitchellT.T.QinJ.F.Nunamaker (2004). A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 139-165.
212. L.ZhouJ.K.BurgoonD.S.ZhangJ.F.Nunamaker (2004). Language dominance in interpersonal deception in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 381-402. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00051-7
213. L.ZhouY.M.ShiD.S.Zhang (2008). A statistical language modeling approach to online deception detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 20, 1077-1081. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2007.190624
214. L.ZhouY.-W.Sung (2008). Cues to deception in online Chinese groups. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-8). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2008.109
215. L.ZhouD.P.TwitchellT.QinJ.K.BurgoonJ.F.Nunamaker (2003). An exploratory study into deception detection in text-based computer-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173793
216. L.ZhouA.Zenebe (2005). Modeling and handling uncertainty in deception detection. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-9). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.438
217. L.ZhouA.Zenebe (2008, April). Representation and reasoning under uncertainty in deception detection: A neuro-fuzzy approach. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 16, 442-454. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.889914
218. L.*ZhouD.Zhang (2004). Can online behavior unveil deceivers? An exploratory investigation of deception in instant messaging. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-9). HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265079
219. L.ZhouD.S.Zhang (2006). A comparison of deception behavior in dyad and triadic group decision making in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 37, 140-164. doi:10.1177/1046496405285125
220. M.ZuckermanB.M.DePauloR.Rosenthal (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.
221. M.ZuckermanR.E.Driver (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A.W.SiegmanS.Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
222. M.ZuckermanR.E.KoestnerM.J.ColellaA.O.Alton (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301-311. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.301