Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T18:09:56.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Detecting concealed information in less than a second: response latency-based measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Bruno Verschuere  and
Jan De Houwer
Edited by
Bruno Verschuere ,
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Ewout Meijer
Bruno Verschuere
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Jan De Houwer
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Bruno Verschuere
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ewout Meijer
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Overview: Concealed information is typically assessed with physiological measures. To overcome the limitations of physiological measures, an assessment using response latencies has been proposed. At first sight, research findings on response latency-based concealed information tests seem inconsistent. Our procedural analysis of the various latency-based tests indicates that tests based on a manipulation of relevant stimulus-response compatibility, such as the oddball task (Farwell and Donchin, 1991; Seymour et al., 2000), have typically produced robust results. These results are promising, but need to be extended with research examining vulnerability to faking and performance under more realistic circumstances.

A wide range of physiological indices have been registered in order to detect concealed information: skin conductance, heart rate, respiration, pulse volume, facial temperature, event-related potentials, and cerebral blood oxygenation. Laboratory studies have typically produced large effect sizes, confirming the validity of concealed information measures that are based on these indices (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2003; Gamer et al., 2008; Langleben et al., 2002; Rosenfeld, 2002). However, physiological measures have their limitations. First, none of these measures allows for perfect detection, leaving room for improvement. Second, certain functional characteristics of physiological indices (e.g., habituation, non-responding) can undermine the validity of concealed information tests, based on these indices. Third, all physiological measures require sophisticated and often expensive machinery. From this perspective, there may be merit in measures that are based on other types of indices.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 46 - 62
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algom, D., Chajut, E., and Shlomo, L. (2004). A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: a generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J., and Movius, H. L. (2000). The objective assessment of amnesia in dissociative identity disorder using event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 38(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J., Iacono, W. G., and Danielson, K. D. (1992). The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioral measures – a methodology for prediction in the face of individual-differences. Psychophysiology, 29(5), 504–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmel, D., Dayan, E., Naveh, A., Raveh, O., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2003). Estimating the validity of the guilty knowledge test from simulated experiments: the external validity of mock crime studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 9, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houwer, J. (2003a). The extrinsic affective Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houwer, J. (2003b). A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes. In Musch, J. and Klauer, K. C. (eds.), The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion (pp. 219–244). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Houwer, J. (2009). Comparing measures of attitudes at the procedural and functional level. In Petty, R., Fazio, R. H., and Brinol, P. (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Degner, J. (2009). On the (un-)controllability of affective priming: strategic manipulation is feasible but can possibly be prevented. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., and Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eder, A. B., and Rothermund, K. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 137(2), 262–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., and Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 757–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhard, I. M., Merckelbach, H., and Hout, M. A. (2003). The guilty knowledge test and the modified Stroop task in detection of deception: an exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 92(2), 683–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farwell, L. A., and Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out – interrogative polygraphy (lie detection) with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farwell, L. A., and Smith, S. S. (2001). Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(1), 135–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M., Bauermann, T., Stoeter, P., and Vossel, G. (2007). Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance and behavioral data during processing of concealed information. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 1287–1301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., and Vossel, G. (2008). Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiology & Behavior, 95, 333–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M., Klimecki, O., Bauermann, T., Stoeter, P., and Vossel, G. (in press). fMRI-activation patterns in the detection of concealed information rely on memory-related effects. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gronau, N., Ben-Shakhar, G., and Cohen, A. (2005). Behavioral and physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, A. A., Hwalek, M., Raney, D. F., and Fritz, J. G. (1978). Cues to deception in an interview situation. Social Psychology, 41(2), 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henke, F., and Eddy, M. W. (1909). Mental diagnosis by the association reaction method. Psychological Review, 16, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, C. G. (1910). The association reaction method. American Journal of Psychology, 21 (219–2240).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L., Maldjian, J. A., Gur, R. C., McDonald, S., Ragland, J. D., et al. (2002). Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage, 15, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locker, L., and Pratarelli, M. E. (1997). Lexical decision and the detection of concealed information. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, 33–43.Google Scholar
Marston, W. M. (1927). Reaction-time symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, I., Nittono, H., Hirota, A., Ogawa, T., and Takasawa, N. (2009). Event-related potentials during the standard autonomic-based concealed infomation test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, E. H., Smulders, F. T. Y., Merckelbach, H. L. G. J., and Wolf, A. G. (2007). The P300 is sensitive to concealed face recognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, R., and Allen, J. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPS, and virtual reality mock crime scenarios. Psychophysiology, 45, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council, National Research (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nittono, H., and Kubo, K. (2008). The effect of intentional concealment on the event-related potentials in a concealed information test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 69(3), 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. (2002). Event-related potentials in the detection of deception, malignering, and false memories. In Murray, K. (ed.), Handbook of Polygrah Testing (pp. 265–286). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., and Singer, E. (2007). Single versus multiple probe blocks of P300-based concealed information tests for self-referring versus incidentally obtained information. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 396–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., and Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41, 205–219.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, B., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., and Mazzeri, L. (1988). A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience, 42(1–2), 157–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenfeld, J. P., Labkovsky, E., Winograd, M., Lui, M. A., Vandenboom, C., and Chedid, E. (2008). The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): a new, countermeasure-resistant, accurate P300-based method for detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 45, 906–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sartori, G., Agosta, S., Zogmaister, C., Ferrara, S. D., and Castiello, U. (2008). How to accurately assess autobiographical events. Psychological Science, 19, 772–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, T. L., and Fraynt, B. R. (2009). Time and encoding effects in the concealed knowledge test. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, T. L., and Kerlin, J. R. (2008). Successful detection of verbal and visual concealed knowledge using an RT-based paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., and Mosmann, A. L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial-verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., and Koster, E. (2004a). Orienting to guilty knowledge. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verschuere, B., Prati, V., and Houwer, J. (2009a). Cheating the lie detector: faking in the autobiographical IAT. Psychological Science, 20, 410–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Clercq, A., and Koster, E. H. W. (2004b). Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating orienting and defensive responses. Psychophysiology, 41, 461–466.Google ScholarPubMed
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Degrootte, T., and Rosseel, Y. (2009b). Detecting concealed information with reaction times: validity and comparison with the polygraph. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1–11.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Koster, E. H. W., and Baelen, P. (2005). Behavioural responding to concealed information: examining the role of relevance orienting. Psychologica Belgica, 45, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Rosenfeld, J. P., Winograd, M., Labkovsky, E., and Wiersema, J. R. (2009c). The role of deception in the P300 memory detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: a review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×