Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 47-50).

Specialist degree in school psychology, Eastern Illinois University, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 29-33).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, March, 2009. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Duquesne University, 2009. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 150-161) and index.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Pittsburgh, 1986. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 230-236).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2004. / Supervisors: David A. Schkade and Stefano Grazioli. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available from UMI.

No description available.

No description available.

The ability to successfully distinguish truthful and deceptive messages within forensic contexts is important to preserve the integrity of the legal system. Research has shown that confession evidence is highly persuasive at a trial level and that false confessions leading to wrongful convictions are problematic within the judicial system. Some recent research also suggests that that neither lay observers nor law enforcement professionals are able to successfully distinguish truths and lies in the context of confessions. Therefore, the present safeguards in the judicial system may be inadequate to detect a false confession and prevent subsequent wrongful convictions. The research presented in this thesis was designed to explore the effectiveness of methods of detecting deception within forensically relevant contexts, specifically confessions. Study One examined the impact of presentation modality and the effectiveness of indirect deception measures on credibility assessments of autobiographical accounts depicting truthful and deceptive confessions. The outcome of this study revealed that fact finders were unable to accurately classify truthful and deceptive confessions across presentation modalities and that indirect measures were unsuccessful in this context. In light of these findings, subsequent studies examined the validity of statement content analysis to discern truth from deception within the context of confessions. Study Two assessed evaluations of Criteria-based Content Analysis and the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales, as applied by untrained observers to discriminate truthful and deceptive confessions. Findings revealed null effects and demonstrated that training in the application of content-based evaluations is an integral element of the valid application of such measures to detecting deception. Studies Three, Four and Five, therefore incorporated a comprehensive training program and focused on the application of a theoretically based method for detecting deception, the Aberdeen Report Judgement Scales, to the analysis of forensically relevant statements describing confessions, alibis and victimisation accounts. Overall, findings revealed some modest evidence for the application of this framework within deceptive contexts, however, account differences as a function of truth status were often rather small and assessments on many dimensions produced null findings. These results are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications for discerning truths and lies within forensic contexts.

Not available / text