Facial psychophysiology in forensic investigation: A novel idea for deception detection

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Aug 1, 2019
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_49_19
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 11, Issue 2, May-August 2019

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Selwin Samuel
Institute of Forensic Science, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
Tanushree Chatterjee
Institute of Behavioral Science, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Himadri Thapliyal
Institute of Behavioral Science, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Priyanka Kacker
Institute of Behavioral Science, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

Abstract

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Selwin Samuel, Tanushree Chatterjee, Himadri Thapliyal, Priyanka Kacker, , & . (2019). Facial psychophysiology in forensic investigation: A novel idea for deception detection. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 11(2), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_49_19
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Krauss, RM, Higgins ET, Herman CP, Zanna MP, editors. Impression formation, impression management, and nonverbal behaviors. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981. p. 323‑41.
  2. Porter S, ten Brinke L. The Truth About Lies: What Works in Detecting High‑Stakes Deception. Vol. 15. Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Okanagan Legal and Criminological Psychology; 2010. p. 57‑75.
  3. O’Sullivan M, Ekman P. The wizards of deception detection. In: Granhag PA, Stromwall LA, editors. The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 269‑86.
  4. Ekman P. Lie catching and micro expressions. The philosophy of deception. Oxford University Press: New York; 2009. p. 118‑33.
  5. Vrij A. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2001.
  6. Frank MG, Ekman P. The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high‑stake lies. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72:1429‑39.
  7. Mackersie CL, Calderon‑Moultrie N. Autonomic nervous system reactivity during speech repetition tasks: Heart rate variability and skin conductance. Ear Hear 2016;37 Suppl 1:118S‑25S.
  8. DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R, Rosenkrantz J, Green, CR. Actual and perceived cues to deception: A closer look at speech. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 1982;3:291‑312.
  9. Krapohl DJ, Shaw PK. Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice. Test Question Construction. Ch. 3. Oxford, UK: Academic Press; 2015. p. 61‑79.
  10. American Psychological Association. The Truth about Lie Detectors aka Polygraph Tests. American Psychological Association; 2004. Available from: https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph. [Last accessed on 2019 Jun 07].
  11. Staunton C, Hammond S. An investigation of the guilty knowledge test polygraph examination. J Crim Psychol 2011;1:1‑4.
  12. Vrij A, Ganis G. Theories in deception and lie detection. InCredibility Assessment. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. p. 301-74.
  13. Synnott J, Dietzel D, Ioannou M. A review of the polygraph: History, methodology and current status. Crime Psychol Rev 2015;1:59‑83.
  14. Bovard PP, Kircher JC, Woltz DJ, Hacker DJ, Cook AE. Effects of direct and indirect questions on the ocular-motor deception test. Polygraph Forensic Credibility Assess Polygraph Forensic Credibility Assess: A J Sci Field Pract 2019;48:40-59.
  15. National Research Council. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
  16. Kahn J, Nelson R, Handler M. An exploration of emotion and cognition during polygraph testing. Polygraph 2009;38:184-97.