Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-22T06:12:09.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Countermeasures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Edited by
Bruno Verschuere ,
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Ewout Meijer
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: Countermeasure manipulations performed by guilty suspects pose a major threat to all methods of psychophysiological detection, including the Concealed Information Test (CIT). The present chapter reviews the experimental literature dealing with the effects of various types of countermeasures (physical and mental) on the outcomes of both the Comparison Questions Test (CQT) and the CIT. Most of the studies reviewed demonstrated that it is possible and in fact quite easy to train subjects to produce or enhance their physiological responses to the neutral items in the CIT and the comparison questions in the CQT, and consequently distort the test's outcome. The studies reviewed focused on the effects of both physical and mental countermeasures on various autonomic measures as well as on ERPs. Finally, several means to protect the CIT against the use of countermeasures are raised and discussed.

Introduction

As indicated in previous chapters of this volume as well as in numerous articles, the CIT has great many advantages as a scientifically based method of detecting involvement in criminal or illegal activities (e.g., Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2002; 2003; Ben-Shakhar et al., 2002). On the other hand, the CIT is by no means free of obstacles and problems.

One of the most serious deficiencies of the CIT is its vulnerability to the use of countermeasures by guilty or deceptive examinees. Countermeasures are deliberate techniques that might be used by suspects to alter their physiological reactions.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 200 - 214
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, J. J., Iacono, W. G., and Danielson, K. D. (1992). The development and validation of an event-related-potential memory assessment procedure: a methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. Psychophysiology, 29, 504–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2002). The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: future prospects and obstacles. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 87–102). 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., Bar-Hillel, M., and Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: reconsidering the use of the GKT in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, M. E. (1980). Physiological detection of deception: measurement of responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers. Psychophysiology, 17, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2008). Covert respiration measures for the detection of concealed information. Biological Psychology, 77, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2009). Countering countermeasures in the concealed information test using covert respiration measures. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farwell, L. A., and Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28, 531–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honts, C. R. (2002). Countermeasures. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 251–264). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., and Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical counter-measures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1987). Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1, 241–247.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K, Winbush, M., and Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kubis, J. F. (1962). Studies in Lie Detection: Computer Feasibility Considerations. Technical Report #62–205, prepared for the Air Force Systems Command. Contract No. AF 30 (602) -2270, project No. 5534, Fordham University.
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Mertens, R., and Allen, J. J. B. (2008). The role of psychophysiology in forensic assessments: deception detection, ERPs, and virtual reality mock crime scenario. Psychophysiology, 45, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, D. C. (1986). The Polygraph in 1986: scientific, professional and legal issues surrounding application and acceptance of polygraph evidence. Utah Law Review, 29–74.Google Scholar
Raskin, D. C., and Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 1–47). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Angell, A., Johnson, M., and Qian, J. H. (1991). An ERP based, control-question lie detector analog: algorithms for discriminating effects within individuals' average wave forms. Psychophysiology, 32, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., and Rayan, A. (2004). Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information. Psychophysiology, 41, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 24, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Rovner, L. I., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1979). Effects of information and practice on detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 16, 197–198.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M., Hira, S., and Matsuda, T. (2001). Effects of mental countermeasure on the physiological detection of deception using the event-related brain potentials. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 72, 322–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×