[
Ansley N. (1999), Development of Deception Criteria Prior to 1950. Polygraph, 28 (1).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barland G.H. (1972), The Reliability of Polygraph Chart Evaluations. Polygraph, 1 (4).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barland G.H., Raskin D.C. (1971), An Experimental Study of Field Techniques in “Lie Detection”, presentation delivered to Society for Psychophysiological Research, St. Louis, 24.10.1971; reprinted in: Psychophysiology, 9, 1972.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bersh P. (1969), A Validation Study of Polygraph Examiner Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53.10.1037/h00280235366311
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bond C.F., DePaulo B.M. (2006), Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dror I.E., Charlton D., Pèron A.E. (2006), Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156.10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.01716325362
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1994), The Effects of Prior Expectations and Outcome Knowledge on Polygraph Examiner’s Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7.10.1002/bdm.3960070405
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1998), The Role of Prior Expectations in Polygraph Examiners Decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ginton A. (2019), Basic vs. Applied Psychology perspectives lead to different implications from the same data; reevaluating the impact of prior expectations on polygraph outcomes, “Social Sciences & Humanities Open”, 1, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337417831_Basic_vs_Applied_Psychology_perspectives_lead_to_different_implications_from_the_same_data_reevaluating_the_impact_of_prior_expectations_on_polygraph_outcomes (accessed: 30.05.2022).10.1016/j.ssaho.2019.100005
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gougler M., Nelson R., Handler M., Krapohl D.J., Shaw P., Bierman L. (2011), Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques. Report Prepared for the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors. Polygraph Special Edition, 40 (4).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hartwig M., Bond C.F. (2011), Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 13.10.1037/a002358921707129
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Holmes W.D. (1957), The degree of objectivity in chart interpretation, In: V.A. Leonard, Academy Lectures on Lie-detection, vol. II, Ch. Thomas, Springfield.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion Development and Validity of the Control Question Test in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology, 123.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. (1988), A Field Study of the Directed Lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16 (1).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F. (1977), The Effects of Selected Variables on Interpretation of Polygraph Records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (2).10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.127
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Horvath F., Reid J. (1971), The reliability of polygraph examiner diagnosis of truth and deception. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62 (1).10.2307/1141892
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kassin S.M., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. (2013), The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2 (1).10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. (2018), Believing is Seeing: The Influence of Expectations on Blind Scoring of Polygraph Data. Polygraph, 47 (2).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kubis J.F. (1962), Studies in lie-detection computer feasibility considerations, Fordham University, New York 1962 (RADC-TR-62-205, Project No. 5534, AF 30 (602)–2270, prepared for Rome Air Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF Griffiss AFB, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology. Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification – Lie Detection, J.A.M. Publications, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception. Polygraph, 2 (3).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Patrick C.J., Iacono W.G. (1991), Validity of the Control Question Polygraph Test. The Problem of Sampling Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2).10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.229
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Raskin D.C., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R., Horowitz S.W. (1988), A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigations. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, Salt Lake City.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Reid J., Inbau F. (1977), Truth and Deception. The polygraph (lie-detector) technique, William & Wilkins, Baltimore.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shurany T., Matte J.A., Stein E. (2009), Influence of Case Facts on Blind Scorers of Polygraph Tests. European Polygraph, Vol. 3, No. 3–4 (9–10).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, Second Edition, Wiley.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wicklander D.E., Hunter F.L. (1975), The influence of auxiliary sources of information in polygraph diagnosis. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3 (4).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wilson C.M. (1950), Should graphs be released or shown after test? ISDD Bulletin, 3 (3),
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Widacki J. (ed., 2018), Kierunki rozwoju instrumentalnej i nieinstrumentalnej detekcji kłamstwa. Problemy kryminalistyczne, etyczne i prawne, Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, Kraków.
]Search in Google Scholar
