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-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T09:19:04.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Theory of the Concealed Information Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

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

Summary

Overview: It is now well established that physiological measures can be validly used to detect concealed information. An important challenge is to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of concealed information detection. We review theoretical approaches that can be broadly classified in two major categories: theories that emphasize emotional–motivational factors, and those that emphasize cognitive factors. While emotional–motivational factors do not appear to be necessary for the detection of concealed information, they may enhance discriminability. Research with realistic setups is needed to examine whether emotional–motivational factors may exert a more prominent role in real-life concealed information tests compared with those performed under laboratory conditions. Empirical research largely supports the cognitive approaches and particularly Orienting Response (OR) theory, which can explain most of the research findings related to the Concealed Information Test (CIT). Future work needs to test whether OR theory holds under real-life circumstances, and whether OR theory needs to incorporate other processes (e.g., response inhibition) to fully account for the differential physiological responding to the relevant items in the CIT.

Discussions about polygraph tests typically focus on applied issues regarding the validity of various methods and measures. However, physiological detection of concealed information is also challenging from a theoretical perspective. Furthermore, a clear understanding of how a test works has an important practical value as it allows predicting the conditions, measures, and populations with which it will work. For example, how do psychopaths respond to the test? How many items are needed?

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 128 - 148
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

Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., and Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balloun, K. D., and Holmes, D.S. (1979). Effects of repeated examinations on the ability to detect guilt with a polygraphic examination: a laboratory experiment with a real crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, R. J. (1977). Failure to find evidence of the unitary OR concept with indifferent low-intensity auditory stimuli. Physiological Psychology, 5, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (1977). A further study of dichotomization theory in detection of information. Psychophysiology, 14, 408–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (1980). Habituation of the orienting response to complex sequences of stimuli. Psychophysiology, 17, 524–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The roles of stimulus novelty and significance in determining the electrodermal orienting response: interactive vs. additive approaches. Psychophysiology, 31, 402–411.CrossRefGoogle 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., and Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and Applications in the Detection of Deception: A Psychophysiological and International Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Gati, I. (1987). Common and distinctive features of verbal and pictorial stimuli as determinants of psychophysiological responsivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Lieblich, I. (1982). The dichotomization theory for differential autonomic responsivity reconsidered. Psychophysiology, 19, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., Lieblich, I., and Kugelmass, S. (1975). Detection of information and GSR habituation: an attempt to derive detection efficiency from two habituation curves. Psychophysiology, 12, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., Lieblich, I., and Kugelmass, S. (1982). Interactive effects of stimulus probability and significance on the skin conductance response. Psychophysiology, 19, 112–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., Frost, R., Gati, I., and Kresh, Y. (1996). Is an apple a fruit? Semantic relatedness as reflected by psychophysiological responsivity. Psychophysiology, 33, 671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gati, I., Ben-Bassat, N., and Sniper, G. (2000). Orienting response reinstatement and dishabituation: the effects of substituting, adding and deleting components of nonsignificant stimuli. Psychophysiology, 37, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., and Warfield, J. F. (1984). Innocence, information, and the guilty knowledge test in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., MacLaren, V. V., and Carle, S. B. (1996). Deception and nondeception in guilty knowledge and guilty actions polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 243–267.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, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Codispoti, M., Bradley, M. M., and Lang, P. J. (2001). Affective reactions to briefly presented pictures. Psychophysiology, 38, 474–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corteen, R. S. (1969). Skin conductance changes and word recall. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 81–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, P. O. (1968). Validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 62–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, R. C. (1961). Physiological responses as a means of evaluating information. In Biderman, A. D. and Zimmer, H. (eds.), The Manipulation of Human Behavior (pp. 142–168). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M., and Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception. In Yuille, J. (ed.), Credibility Assessment (pp. 51–70). Belgium: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dindo, L., and Fowles, D. C. (2008). The skin conductance orienting response to semantic stimuli: significance can be independent of arousal. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 111–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989). Effects of motivation and verbal response type on psychophysiological detection of information. Psychophysiology, 26, 442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2006). Finger pulse waveform length in the detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Furedy, J. J., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). The role of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge. Psychophysiology, 28, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J. J., Davis, C., and Gurevich, M. (1988). Differentiation of deception as a psychological process: a psychophysiological approach. Psychophysiology, 25, 683–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J. J., Gigliotti, F., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). Electrodermal differentiation of deception: the effect of choice vs. no choice of deceptive items. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 18, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J. J., Posner, R., and Vincent, A. (1991). Electrodermal differentiation of deception: memory-difficulty and perceive-accuracy manipulations. Psychophysiology, 28, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamer, M., and Berti, S. (2009). Task relevance and recognition of concealed information have different influences on electrodermal activity and event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 47, 355–364.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., Rill, H. G., Vossel, G., and Godert, H. W. (2006). Psychophysiological and vocal measures in the detection of guilty knowledge. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gati, I., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1990). Novelty and significance in orientation and habituation: a feature-matching approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, F. K., and Clifton, R. K. (1966). Heart rate change as a component of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustafson, L. A., and Orne, M. T. (1963). Effects of heightened motivation on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, L. A., and Orne, M. T. (1965a). The effects of verbal responses on the laboratory detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 7, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, L. A., and Orne, M. T. (1965b). Effects of perceived role and role success on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horneman, C. J ., and O'Gorman, J. G. (1985). Detectability in the card test as a function of the subject's verbal response. Psychophysiology, 22, 330–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iacono, W. G., Boisvenu, G. A., and Fleming, J. A. E. (1984). Effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jokinen, A., Santtila, P., Ravaja, N., and Puttonen, S. (2006). Salience of guilty knowledge test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62(1), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kugelmass, S., and Lieblich, I. (1966). Effects of realistic stress and procedural interference in experimental lie detection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kugelmass, S., Lieblich, I., and Bergman, Z. (1967). The role of “lying” in psychophysiological detection. Psychophysiology, 3, 312–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., and Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieblich, I., Kugelmass, S., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1970). Efficiency of GSR detection of information as a function of stimulus set size. Psychophysiology, 6, 601–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieblich, I., Naftali, G., Shmueli, J., and Kugelmass, S. (1974). Efficiency of GSR detection of information with repeated presentation of series of stimuli in two motivational states. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubow, R. E., and Fein, O. (1996). Pupillary size in response to a visual guilty knowledge test: new technique for the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 164–177.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1932). The Nature of Human Conflicts. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 358–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. American Psychologist, 29, 725–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynn, R. (1966). Attention, Arousal and the Orienting Reaction. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,National Research Council (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Öhman, A. (1992). Orienting and attention: preferred preattentive processing of potentially phobic stimuli. In Campbell, B. A., Hayne, H., and Richardson, R. (eds.), Attention and Information Processing in Infants and Adults (pp. 263–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Condition Reflex. Oxford: Charandon Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. E., and Casey, B. J. (1992). Development of sustained visual attention in the human infant. In Campbell, B. A., Hayne, H., and Richardson, R.(eds.), Attention and Information Processing in Infants and Adults: Perspectives from Human and Animal Research (pp. 30–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, B., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., and Mazzeiri, L. (1988). A modified event-related potential-based guilty-knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience, 42, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, T. L., and Fraynt, B. R. (2009). Time and encoding effects in the concealed knowledge test. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 177–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddle, D. A. T. (1991). Orienting, habituation, and resource allocation: an associative analysis. Psychophysiology, 28, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddle, D. A. T., and Lipp, O. V. (1997). Orienting, habituation, and information processing: the effects of omission, the role of expectancy, and the problem of dishabituation. In Lang, P. J., Simons, R. F., and Balaban, M. T. (eds.), Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes (pp. 23–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sokolov, E. N. (1966) Orienting reflex as information regulator. In Leontyev, A., Luria, A., and Smirnov, A. (eds.), Psychological Research in U.S.S.R. (pp. 334–360). Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Spence, S. A., Hunter, M. D., Farrow, T. F. D., Green, R. D., Leung, D. H., Hughes, C. J., and Ganesan, V. (2004). A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1755–1762.Google ScholarPubMed
Stekelenburg, J. J., and Boxtel, A. (2001). Inhibition of pericranial muscle activity, respiration, and heart rate enhances auditory sensitivity. Psychophysiology, 38, 629–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, R., Nakayama, M., and Furedy, J. (2004). Specific and reactive sensitivities of skin resistance response and repiratory apnea in a Japanse Concealed Information Test (CIT) of criminal guilt. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 36, 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timm, H. W. (1982). Effect of altered outcome expectancies stemming from placebo and feedback treatments on the validity of the guilty knowledge technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diest, I., Winters, W., Devriese, S., Vercamst, E., Han, J. N., Woestijne, K. P., and Bergh, O. (2001). Hyperventilation beyond fight/flight: respiratory responses during emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 38, 961–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verschuere, B., and Meijer, E. (submitted). Autonomic responding to concealed card recognition in real-life police interrogations.
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., and Koster, E. (2004a). Orienting to guilty knowledge. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Declercq, A., and Koster, E. (2004b). Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating defensive and orienting responses. Psychophysiology, 41, 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Clercq, A., and Koster, E. (2005). Psychopathic traits and autonomic responding to concealed information in a prison sample. Psychophysiology, 42, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Smolders, L., and Clercq, A. (2009). Differentiating defensive and orienting responses to concealed information: the role of verbalisation. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 34, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Koster, E., Bockstaele, B., and Clercq, A. (2007). Startling Secrets: startle eye blink modification by concealed crime information. Biological Psychology, 76, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, A., and Furedy, J. J. (1992). Electrodermal differentiation of deception: potentially confounding and influencing factors. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 13, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., and Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 141–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, A. R. (1978). Expectancies and the priming of STM. In Hulse, S. H., Fowler, H., and Honig, W. K. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior (pp. 177–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Waid, W. M., Orne, E. C., and Orne, M. T. (1981). Selective memory for social information, alertness, and physiological arousal in the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 224–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waid, W. M., Orne, E. C., Cook, M. R., and Orne, M. T. (1978). Effects of attention, as indexed by subsequent memory, on electrodermal detection of information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 728–733.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
×