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: 2024-07-22T14:30:37.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Epilogue: current status and future developments in CIT research and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

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

Summary

This volume, focusing on memory detection, provides a comprehensive and updated review of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) from almost all aspects: the measures used for detecting concealed knowledge (behavioral, autonomic, and brain-related measures); the underlying theories that may account for the effects observed in the CIT; its usage in forensic and clinical settings; its legal aspects and also the weaknesses of the test such as its vulnerability to countermeasures and to information leakage as well as its practical limitations. In this final chapter, we wish to briefly summarize the current status of the CIT and discuss several possible future developments.

Current status

Five decades of extensive research that has been conducted since the pioneering studies reported by David Lykken (1959, 1960) revealed that at least under controlled laboratory conditions, the CIT emerges as one of the most valid and accurate tools originating from psychology and behavioral sciences. For example, the meta-analytic study reported by Ben-Shakhar and Elaad (2003) showed that the average effect size (standardized mean difference between responses to concealed items of knowledgeable and unknowledgeable subjects) computed across all mock-crime experiments was 2.09, which is equivalent to a correlation coefficient of 0.65. Furthermore, when considering only mock-crime experiments that applied the CIT under optimal conditions (at least five CIT questions, motivational instructions, and a deceptive verbal response), the average effect size increased to 3.12, which is equivalent to a correlation coefficient of 0.79.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 303 - 309
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

Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., and Buchanan, T. W. (2005). Amygdala damage impairs emotional memory for gist but not details of complex stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 103–126). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of deception with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gronau, N., and Elaad, E. (1999). Leakage of relevant information to innocent examinees in the GKT: an attempt to reduce false-positive outcomes by introducing target stimuli. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(4), 261–269.Google ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., and Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M., Kosiol, D., and Vossel, G. (2010). Strength of memory encoding affects physiological responses in the Guilty Action Test. Biological Psychology, 83, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., and Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hira, S., and Furumitsu, I. (2002). Polygraphic examinations in Japan: application of the guilty knowledge test in forensic investigations. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (1991). Can we determine the accuracy of polygraph tests? In Jennings, J. R., Ackles, P. K., and Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, 4 (pp. 1–101). London: Jessica Kingsley
Kensinger, E. A. (2007). Negative emotion enhances memory accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (2003). Make-believe memories. American Psychologist, 58, 867–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, E., Smulders, F., and Merckelbach, H. (2010). Extracting concealed information from groups. Journal of Forensic Sciences.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podlesney, J. A. (1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 57–61.Google Scholar
Podlesney, J. A. (2003). A paucity of operable case facts restricts applicability of the guilty knowledge technique in FBI criminal polygraph examinations. Forensic Science Communications, 5, Retrieved June 21, 2010 from www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2003/podlesny.htm.Google 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
Shapiro, D. (2002). Renewing the scientist-practitioner model. The Psychologist, 15, 232–234.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Clercq, A., and Koster, E. H. W. (2005). Psychopathic traits and autonomic responding to concealed information in a prison sample. Psychophysiology, 42, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Koster, E. H. W., and Clercq, A. (2007). Antisociality, underarousal and the validity of the concealed information polygraph test. Biological Psychology, 74, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×