scispace - formally typeset
S

Susan Amato

Researcher at Boise State University

Publications -  8
Citations -  154

Susan Amato is an academic researcher from Boise State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Polygraph & Credibility. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 8 publications receiving 151 citations. Previous affiliations of Susan Amato include Michigan Technological University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The Willingness of Children to Lie and the Assessment of Credibility in an Ecologically Relevant Laboratory Setting

TL;DR: In this paper, a series of experiments were conducted to determine the willingness of children to lie in a realistic setting, compare judgments of credibility from both lay evaluations and Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), and examine the effects of expert testimony regarding statement validity assessment on mock jurors who were asked to make evaluations of the children's statements.

Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test

TL;DR: In this paper, the frequency and effects of spontaneous countermeasures attempted against a polygraph examination were examined in a mock-crime study of the comparison question test (CQT), and it was found that 45.8% of the innocent participants reported trying at least one countermeasure in an effort to make themselves look more truthful.
Journal ArticleDOI

Effects of outside issues on the comparison question test.

TL;DR: Test questions about possible outside issues were ineffective in detecting the presence of the outside issue, but they did function as comparison questions, which have implications for understanding the high rate of false positive outcomes in some studies.
Journal ArticleDOI

Automation of a Screening Polygraph Test Increases Accuracy

TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of automating the Relevant-relevant (RI) psychophysiological detection of deception test within a mock-screening paradigm were examined and the results showed that polygraph examinations conducted with the automated polygraph examination were significantly more accurate than examinations conducted by the human polygraph examiner.