Detecting deception in person-of-interest statements

4Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Most humans cannot detect lies at a rate better than chance. Alternative methods of deception detection may increase accuracy, but are intrusive, do not offer immediate feedback, or may not be useful in all situations. Automated classification methods have been suggested as an alternative to address these issues, but few studies have tested their utility with real-world, high-stakes statements. The current paper reports preliminary results from classification of actual security police investigations collected under high stakes and proposes stages for conducting future analyses. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fuller, C., Biros, D. P., Adkins, M., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Coulon, S. (2006). Detecting deception in person-of-interest statements. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 3975 LNCS, pp. 504–509). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/11760146_48

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free