The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts: Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’

By Günter Köhnken. 2004

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Pharmacy, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e27eb01e6316da5c349f10439e69a51efecd3d24

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

1. Maria Hartwig
2. Francisca Fariña
3. Bárbara G. Amado
4. R. Arce
5. R. Fisher
6. Aldert Vrij
7. R. Volbert
8. M. Steller

In Pharmacy

1. Francisca Fariña
2. Bárbara G. Amado
3. R. Fisher
4. Aldert Vrij
5. R. Arce
6. R. Volbert
7. M. Steller
8. Maria Hartwig

In Social Psychology

1. Aldert Vrij
2. Maria Hartwig
3. R. Fisher
4. Sharon Leal
5. Samantha Mann
6. Bárbara G. Amado
7. R. Arce
8. Francisca Fariña

Citations in the corpus

• Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review (2015, methodology): “Thus, the evaluation rests on a clinical judgement (Köhnken, 2004), which is semi-objective.”
• Nonverbal Dominance Versus Verbal Accuracy in Lie Detection (2008, methodology): “…is the core component of Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), a verbal lie detection tool developed in Sweden and Germany and used as evidence in criminal court in both of those two countries and also in other European countries, such as Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (Köhnken, 2004).”
• Criminal versus HUMINT Interrogations: The Importance of Psychological Science to Improving Interrogative Practice (2010, unknown): “The most promising indicators of deception appear to involve cognitive or story-based cues (see Köhnken, 2004; Sporer, 2004; Vrij, 2005).”
• ‘Look into my eyes’: can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? (2010, background): “Describing events in detail is typically more cognitively challenging for liars than for truth tellers (Köhnken, 1996, 2004; Vrij, 2005, 2008).”
• Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory? (2014, methodology): “With regard to practical applications, it should be noted that the distinction between truthful and fabricated 216 R. Volbert & M. Steller: Testimony Credibility Assessment European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(3):207–220 2014 Hogrefe Publishing statements is mostly not at the forefront of credibility”
• Interrogating to detect deception and truth : effects of strategic use of evidence (2005, methodology): “There are some differences in terms of specific details between deceptive and truthful accounts: Liars spontaneously correct themselves and admit not remembering to a lesser extent than truth tellers, indicating that liars’ stories may lack some of the so called ordinary imperfections of truthful ac”