Prof. Nahari Galit
Nahari, G. (in press). Reality Monitoring in the Forensic Context: Digging Deeper into the Speech of Liars. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Vernham, Z., Dalton, G., Jupe, L.M., Harvey, A., & Nahari, G. (in press). Cross-cultural verbal deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology
Vrij, A. & Nahari, G. (in press). The verifiability approach. In J. Dickinson, N. Schreiber Compo, R. Carol, M. McCauley (Eds.). Evidence-Based Investigative Interviewing. London: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).
Nahari, G. (in press). Verifiability approach: Applications in different judgmental settings. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.). The Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Nahari, G. (2018). The applicability of the verifiability approach to the Real world. In J. P. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments (pp. 329 - 349). London: Elsevier
Nahari, G. (2017). Top-down processes in interpersonal reality monitoring (RM) assessments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 232 - 242.
Kleinberg, B., Nahari, G., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2017). An investigation of the detectability of false intent about flying. Collabra: Psychology, 3: 21, 1 – 14.
Jupe, L. M., Leal, S; Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2017). Applying the Verifiability Approach in an International Airport Setting. Psychology, Crime and Law, 23, 812
Harvey, C. H., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Lafferty, M., Nahari, G. (2017). Insurance-Based Lie Detection: Enhancing the Verifiability Approach with a Model Statement Component. Acta Psychologica, 174, 1- 8.
Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2017). Verbal lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, R. Bull, A. Shaboltas, & E. Dozortseva (Eds.), Psychology and law in Europe: When West Meets East (pp. 263 - 282). London: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group).
Harvey, A. C., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., & Ludwig, K. (2017). Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 47 - 59.
Nahari, G. (2016). When the long road is the shortcut: A comparison between two coding methods for content-based lie detection tools. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 22, 1000-1014.
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Geven, L, & Mann, S. (2016). Please be Honest and Provide Evidence: Deterrents of Deception in an Online Insurance Fraud Context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 768 - 774.
Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Isitt, R., & Leal, S. (2016). Using the verifiability lie detection approach in an insurance claim setting. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13, 183–197.
Jupe, L. M., Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2016). The lies we live: Using the Verifiability Approach to detect lying about occupation. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 13, 1 - 13.
Nahari, G. (2016). Advances in lie detection: limitations and potential for investigating allegations of abuse. In R. Burnett (Ed.), Vilified: Wrongful Allegations of Sexual and Child Abuse. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2015). Systematic errors (biases) in applying verbal lie detection tools: Richness in detail as a test case. Crime Psychology Review, 1, 98 - 107.
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2015). Can someone fabricate verifiable details when planning in advance? It all depends on the crime scenario. Psychology, Crime and Law, 21, 987 - 999.
Nahari, G., & Pazuelo, M. (2015). Telling a convincing story: Richness in detail as a function of gender and information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 363 - 367.
Nahari, G., Sheinfeld, V., Glicksohn, J., & Nachson, I. (2015). Serial reproduction of traumatic events: does the chain unravel?. Cognitive processing, 16, 111-120.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Warmelink, L., & Vernham, Z. (2014). Did somebody see it? Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claims interviews, Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 237 – 243.
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Can I Borrow Your Alibi? The Applicability of the Verifiability Approach to the Case of an Alibi Witness, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 89 - 94.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to uncover lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 122 - 128.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A. (2014). Are you as good as me at telling a story? Individual differences in interpersonal reality-monitoring. Psychology, Crime and Law, 20, 573 - 583.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 227 - 239.
Nahari, G. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2013). Primacy effect in credibility judgments: The vulnerability of verbal cues to biased interpretations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 247-255.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? SCAN as a lie detection tool. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 68-76.
Nahari, G. (2012). Elaborations on credibility judgments by professional lie detectors and laypersons: strategies of judgment and justification. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18, 567-577.
Nahari, G. (2012). Individual differences between judges in credibility judgments of testimonies. In R. Peled-Laskov, E. Shoham, & M. Carmon (Eds), False convictions: Philosophical, organizational and psychological aspects (pp. 229-239). Tel-Aviv: Perlstein-Ginosar (Hebrew).
Nahari, G. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2011). Psychophysiological and behavioral measures for detecting concealed information: The role of memory for crime details. Psychophysiology, 48, 733-875.
Nahari, G., Glicksohn, J., & Nachson, I. (2010). Credibility judgments of narratives: Language, plausibility and absorption. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 319–335.
Nahari, G. (2010). Credibility judgments: Biases which are inherent in the judge. Social Issues in Israel, 10, 6-27. (Hebrew).
Nahari, G. (2010). Cigarette smoking motives among Israeli young smokers: The role of personality and smoking level. Megamot, 47, 254-276. (Hebrew).
Nahari, G., Glicksohn, J., & Nachson, I. (2009). Do textual features affect credibility judgment? It all depends on who is the Judge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 288-295.
Nahari, G. (2008). The role of perspective-taking in credibility judgments. In E. Avram (Ed.), Psychology in a positive world: Resources for personal, organizational, and social development (pp. 77-86). Bucharest: University Press.
Glicksohn, J., & Nahari, G. (2007). Interacting personality traits? Smoking as a test case. European Journal of Personality, 21, 225-234.
Hazani, M., & Nahari, G. (2003). Social organization, intergenerational ties, and juvenile delinquency. International Review of Sociology, 13, 3-20.
Bitan, M., Nahari, G., Nisin, Z., Roth, A., & Kraus, S. (2017). Psychologically based Virtual-Suspect for Interrogative Interview Training. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 402-406). Springer International Publishing.
Bitan, M., Nahari, G., Nisin, Z., Roth, A., & Kraus, S. (2016). Psychologically based Virtual-Suspect for Interrogative Interview Training (Short paper in IVA, 2016).
Kleinberg, B, Nahari, G., & Verschuere , B. (2016). Using the verifiability of details as a test of deception: A conceptual framework for the automation of the verifiability approach. Proceeding of NAACL-HLT 2016, 18–25.
1. Detection of deception and witnesses credibility assessments
2. Legal and investigative decision-making
3. Forensic judgmental biases
4. Interpersonal Reality Monitoring
5. Detection of concealed information.
6. Applied memory
7. Criminal psychology and liar's strategies
|8. Verifiability approach|