To Catch a Liar: Challenges for Research in Lie Detection Training

By Mark G. Frank, Thomas Hugh Feeley. 2003

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa91b0cdbd6adf76e6bda68b9df17c7f91658933

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Timothy R. Levine

In Clinical Psychology

1. M. Hughes
2. Hee Sun Park
3. Rachel K. Kim
4. Timothy R. Levine

In Social Psychology

1. Timothy R. Levine
2. M. Hughes
3. Hee Sun Park
4. Rachel K. Kim
5. Alan K. Goodboy
6. San Bolkan
7. Jeffrey A. Hall
8. Masaki Matsunaga

Citations in the corpus

• Deception Detection Accuracy is a Predictable Linear Function of Message Veracity Base-Rate: A Formal Test of Park and Levine's Probability Model (2006, background): “High-stakes lies are presumed to be more arousing, and nonverbal clues to deceit are more likely to be apparent in high-stakes situations (DePaulo et al., 2003; Frank & Feeley, 2003).”
• Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve (2004, unknown): “Reviews of 'training studies' have indicated some, but only limited, success with both approaches (Frank & Feeley, 2003; Vrij, 2000a).”