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-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:21:53.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Detection of Deception

from Topical Psychophysiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

By
William G. Iacono
Edited by
John T. Cacioppo ,
Louis G. Tassinary  and
Gary G. Berntson
John T. Cacioppo
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Louis G. Tassinary
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Gary G. Berntson
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Handbook of Psychophysiology , pp. 565 - 580
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

American Polygraph Association (2011). Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph, 40: 194–305.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. M. & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences of the USA, 1191: 133–155.Google 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, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2008). The case against the use of polygraph examinations to monitor post-conviction sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13: 191–207.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2011). Countermeasurs. In Verscheure, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 200–214). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2012). Current research and potential applications of the concealed information test: an overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 3: 342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G. & 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 Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. & Kremnitzer, M. (2011). The concealed information test in the courtroom: legal aspects. In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 276–290). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, H., Filetti, M., Alsufyani, A., Janssen, D., & Su, L. (2014). Countering countermeasures: detecting identity lies by detecting conscious breakthrough. PLoS One, 9: e90595.Google Scholar
Carmel, D., Dayan, E., Naveh, A., Raveh, O., & 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.Google Scholar
Christ, S. E., Van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E., & McDermott, K. B. (2009). The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cerebral Cortex, 19: 1557–1566.Google Scholar
Christianson, S. A. (2007). Offenders’ Memories of Violent Crimes. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). 113 C.Ct. 2786.Google Scholar
Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 521–529.Google Scholar
Elaad, E. & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2009). Countering countermeasures in the concealed information test using covert respiration measures. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 757–767.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Blumenthal, J. A., Cheng, E. K., Mnookin, J. L., Murphy, E. E., & Sanders, J. (2014). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. Eagen, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J. B., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-based lie detection: scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15: 123–131.Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A. (2012). Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 6: 115–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farwell, L. A. & Richardson, D. C. (2013). Brain fingerprinting: let’s focus on the science – a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 7: 159–166.Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A., Richardson, D. C., & Richardson, G. (2011). Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 ERPs in the detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 48: S95–S96.Google Scholar
Farwell, L. A., Richardson, D. C., Richardson, G. M., & Furedy, J. J. (2014). Brain fingerprinting classification concealed information test detects US Navy military medical information with P300. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8: 410.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Schmod, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 24: 313–324.Google Scholar
Frye v. United States (1924). 293 F.1013.Google Scholar
Gamer, M. (2011). Detecting of deception and concealed information using neuroimaging techniques. In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 90–113). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gamer, M. (2014). Mind reading using neuroimaging: is this the future of deception detection? European Psychologist, 19: 172–183.Google Scholar
Gamer, M. & Ambach, W. (2014). Deception research today. Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 256.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches. Malden, MA: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Harrington v. Iowa (1997). 109 F. 3d 1275 – Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit C.F.R.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application. Journal of General Psychology, 123: 309–324.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception. In Granhag, P. A. & Stromwall, L. A. (eds.), The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (pp. 103–123). Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R. (2014). Countermeasures and credibility assessment. In Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (eds.), Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (pp. 131–158). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R. & Alloway, W. R. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Legal & Criminal Psychology, 12: 311–320.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 177–187.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D., & Kircher, J. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 252–259.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). The case for polygraph tests. In Faigman, D. L., Saks, M. J., Sanders, J., & Cheng, E. K. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, vol. 5 (pp. 297–341). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/West.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (1985). Guilty knowledge. Society, 22: 52–54.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (1991). Can we determine the accuracy of polygraph tests? In Jennings, J. R., Ackles, P. K., & Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology (pp. 201–207). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2000). The detection of deception. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. (eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd edn. (pp. 772–793). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2007). Detection of deception. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology, 3rd edn. (pp. 688–703). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2008a). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: problems using confessions to determine ground truth. Physiology & Behavior, 95: 24–26.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2008b). Effective policing: understanding how polygraph tests work and are used. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35: 1295–1308.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2008c). The forensic application of “brain fingerprinting”: why scientists should encourage the use of P300 memory detection methods. American Journal of Bioethics, 8: 30–32.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2009). Psychophysiological detection of deception and guilty knowledge. In Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (eds.), Psychological Science in the Courtroom: Controversies and Consensus (pp. 224–241). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2011). Encourgaing the use of the guilty knowledge test (GKT): what the GKT has to offer law enforcement In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 12–23). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (2015). Forensic application of event-related brain potentials to detect guilty knowledge. In Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (eds.), Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., Boisvenu, G. A., & Fleming, J. A. (1984). The effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 289–299.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. & Lykken, D. T. (2009). The case against polygraph tests. In Faigman, D. L., Saks, M. J., Sanders, J., & Cheng, E. K. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, vol. 5 (pp. 342–406). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/West.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. & Patrick, C. J. (1988). Assessing deception: polygraph techniques. In Rogers, R. (ed.), Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception (pp. 205–233). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G. & Patrick, C. J. (2014). Employing polygraph assessment. In Weiner, I. B. & Otto, R. K. (eds.), The Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 4th edn. (pp. 613–658). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. J. Jr. (2014). The neural basis of deception and credibility assessment: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (eds.), Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (pp. 217–300). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kleinberg, B. & Verschuere, B. (2015). Memory detection 2.0: the first web-based memory detection test. PLoS One, 10: e0118715.Google Scholar
Kleinmuntz, B. & Szucko, J. S. (1984). A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature, 308: 449–450.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43: 385–388.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44: 258–262.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1981). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. 2nd edn. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Mangan, D. J., Armitage, T. E., & Adams, G. C. (2008). A field study on the validity of the quadri-track zone comparison technique. Physiology & Behavior, 95: 17–23.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H., Ben-Shakhar, G., Verschuere, B., & Donchin, E. (2012). A comment on Farwell (2012): Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 7: 155–158.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H., Selle, N. K., Elber, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2014). Memory detection with the concealed information test: a meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data. Psychophysiology, 51: 879–904.Google Scholar
Meijer, E. H., Verschuere, B., Merckelbach, H. L., & Crombez, G. (2008). Sex offender management using the polygraph: a critical review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31: 423–429.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B., Labkovsky, E., Rosenfeld, J. P., Winograd, M., Sokolovsky, A., Weishaar, J., & Ullmann, T. (2013). P900: a putative novel ERP component that indexes countermeasure use in the P300-based concealed information test. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 38: 121–132.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2014). Detecting knowledge of incidentally acquired, real-world memories using a P300-based concealed-information test. Psychological Science, 25: 1994–2005.Google Scholar
Monteleone, G. T., Phan, K. L., Nusbaum, H. C., Fitzgerald, D., Irick, J. S., Fienberg, S. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). Detection of deception using fMRI: better than chance, but well below perfection. Social Neuroscience, 4: 528–538.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ogawa, T., Matsuda, I., & Tsuneoka, M. (2015). The comparison question test versus the concealed information test? That was the question in Japan: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015). International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95: 29–30.Google Scholar
Oksol, E. M. & O’Donohue, W. T. (2003). A critical analysis of the polygraph. In O’Donohue, W. T. & Levensky, E. R. (eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology: Resource for Mental Health and Legal Professionals (pp. 601–634). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Osugi, A. (2011). Daily application of the concealed information test: Japan. In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 253–275). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, C. J. & Iacono, W. G. (1991a). A comparison of field and laboratory polygraphs in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 28: 632–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1991b). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 229–238.Google Scholar
Plichta, M. M., Schwarz, A. J., Grimm, O., Morgen, K., Mier, D., Haddad, L., … & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2012). Test–retest reliability of evoked BOLD signals from a cognitive-emotive fMRI test battery. NeuroImage, 60: 1746–1758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podlesny, 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
Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (eds.) (2014). Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications. Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Raskin, D. C. & Kircher, J. C. (2014). Validity of polygraph techniques and decision methods. In Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (eds.), Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications (pp. 65–129). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. (2005). “Brain fingerprinting”: a critical analysis. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4: 20–37.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. (2011). P300 in detecting concealed information. In Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test (pp. 63–89). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Ganis, G. (2012). Detection of concealed stored memeories with psychophysiological and neuroimaging methods. In Nadal, L. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (eds.), Memory and Law (pp. 263–303). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Hu, X., Labkovsky, E., Meixner, J., & Winograd, M. R. (2013). Review of recent studies and issues regarding the P300-based complex trial protocol for detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90: 118–134.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P. & Labkovsky, E. (2010). New P300-based protocol to detect concealed information: resistance to mental countermeasures against only half the irrelevant stimuli and a possible ERP indicator of countermeasures. Psychophysiology, 47: 1002–1010.Google Scholar
Saxe, L., Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. (1985). The validity of polygraph testing: scientific analysis and public controversy. American Psychologist, 40: 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, F. X. & Jones, O. D. (2011). Brain scans as evidence: truths, proofs, lies, and lessons. Mercer Law Review, 62: 861–883.Google Scholar
United States v. Semrau (2012). No. 1:07-cr-10074–1. United States Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (eds.) (2011). Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Merkelbach, H. (2008). The quadri-track zone comparison technique: it’s just not science. A critique to Mangan, Armitage, and Adams (2008). Physiology & Behavior, 95: 27–28.Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilson v. Corestaff Services (2010). WL 1949095 (N.Y. sup. Ct., May 14, 2010).Google 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
×