BiblioAlertes du 25 mars 2013

25 mars 2013 par Frank Arnould

Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 27, n° 2, 2013 :

Agosta, S., Pezzoli, P., & Sartori, G. How to detect deception in everyday life and the reasons underlying it, pp.256–262. doi:10.1002/acp.2902

Ask, K., Granhag, P. A., Juhlin, F., & Vrij, A. Intending or pretending ? Automatic evaluations of goal cues discriminate true and false intentions, pp. 173–177. doi:10.1002/acp.2893

Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. The angry juror : Sentencing decisions in first-degree murder, pp. 156–166. doi:10.1002/acp.2880

Nahari, G., & Ben-Shakhar, G. Primacy effect in credibility judgements : The vulnerability of verbal cues to biased interpretations, pp. 247–255. doi:10.1002/acp.2901

Park, J., & Feigenson, N. Effects of a visual technology on mock juror decision making, pp. 235–246. doi:10.1002/acp.2900

Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessments of eyewitness accuracy, pp. 190–197. doi:10.1002/acp.2895

Smith, A. M., Leach, A.-M., & Cutler, B. L. Facilitating accuracy in showup identification procedures : The effects of the presence of stolen property, pp. 216–221. doi:10.1002/acp.2898. Lire le compte rendu sur PsychoTémoins.

Spring, T., Saltzstein, H. D., & Peach, R. Children’s eyewitness identification as implicit moral decision-making, pp. 139–149. doi:10.1002/acp.2871

Frontiers in Cognitive Science, vol. 4, 2013 :

Visu-Petra, G., Varga, M., & Visu-Petra, L. When interference helps : increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information test, 146. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146. Accès libre en ligne.

Duran, N. D., Dale, R., Kello, C. T., Street, C. N. H., & Richardson, D. C. Exploring the movement dynamics of deception 140. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00140. Accès libre en ligne.

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, vol. 2, n° 1, 2013 :

Price, H. L., Roberts, K. P., & Collins, A. The quality of children’s allegations of abuse in investigative interviews containing practice narratives, pp. 1‑6. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.03.001. Lire le compte rendu sur PsychoTémoins.

Hope, L., Mullis, R., & Gabbert, F. Who ? What ? When ? Using a timeline technique to facilitate recall of a complex event, pp. 20‑24. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.002. Lire le compte rendu sur PsychoTémoins.

Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. Validating a new assessment method for deception detection : Introducing a Psychologically Based Credibility Assessment Tool, pp. 33‑41. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002. Lire le compte rendu sur PsychoTémoins.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. The forensic confirmation bias : Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions, pp. 42‑52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001

Butt, L. The forensic confirmation bias : Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions – Commentary by a forensic examiner, pp. 59‑60. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.012

Charlton, D. Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination ? Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency ? pp. 71‑72. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.009

Charman, S. D. The forensic confirmation bias : A problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation, pp. 56‑58. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.010

Cole, S. A. Implementing counter-measures against confirmation bias in forensic science, pp. 61‑62. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.011

Elaad, E. Psychological contamination in forensic decisions, pp. 76‑77. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.006

Garrett, B. L. Blinded criminal justice, pp. 73‑75. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.003

Haber, R. N., & Haber, L. The culture of science : Bias and forensic evidence, pp. 65‑67. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.005

Heyer, R., & Semmler, C. Forensic confirmation bias : The case of facial image comparison, pp. 68‑70. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.008

Triplett, M. Errors in forensics : Cause(s) and solutions, pp. 63‑64. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.007

Wells, G. L., Wilford, M. M., & Smalarz, L. Forensic science testing : The forensic filler-control method for controlling contextual bias, estimating error rates, and calibrating analysts’ reports, pp. 53‑55. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.004

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, vol. 28, n° 1, 2013 :

Leach, A.-M., & Silva, C. S. D. Language proficiency and police officers’ lie detection performance, pp.48‑53. doi:10.1007/s11896-012-9109-3

Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Jordan, S., Joseph, E., … Granhag, P. A. Interviewing to elicit cues to deception : Improving Strategic Use of Evidence with general-to-specific framing of evidence, pp. 54‑62. doi:10.1007/s11896-012-9113-7

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., & Pettalia, J. The Z generation : Examining perpetrator descriptions and lineup identification procedures, pp. 63‑74. doi:10.1007/s11896-012-9107-5

Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, vol. 63, n° 2, 2013 :

Esnard, C., Dumas, R., & Bordel, S. Effects of the « intimate conviction » instruction on the processing of judicial information, pp. 121‑128. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2012.12.002

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 17, n° 3, 2013 :

Roskies, A. L., Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. Neuroimages in court : less biasing than feared, pp. 99‑101. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.008