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-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:00:15.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Limitations of the Concealed Information Test in criminal cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Donald J. Krapohl
Edited by
Bruno Verschuere ,
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Ewout Meijer
Donald J. Krapohl
Affiliation:
US Department of Defense National Center
Bruno Verschuere
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ewout Meijer
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Overview: The Concealed Information Test (CIT) has enjoyed a longer and more energized scientific interest than concern-based methods like the probable-lie Comparison Question Test (CQT). The roots of the CIT and CQT methods in polygraphy can be traced to the United States, and variations of both approaches are taught in virtually all polygraph schools. Despite scientific advocacy for the CIT, polygraph examiners rarely employ it in most countries. In this chapter practical and cultural factors are offered as possible reasons why the CIT did not become the preferred method in the field. The end of the chapter includes suggestions to practitioners, agencies, and scientists on how to expand the use of the CIT.

Since the introduction of the Concealed Information Test (CIT; Lykken, 1959, 1960) this approach has garnered almost universal appeal among scientists who have taken an interest in deception detection. There are about six dozen countries where the polygraph is used for deception detection (Barland, 1999), but the CIT has been adopted by field practitioners to a significant degree in only one of them (Japan). Despite its more firm theoretical foundation and simple elegance over the more popular Comparison Question Techniques (Raskin and Honts, 2002), polygraph examiners have largely ignored the benefits that the CIT offer. The purpose of this chapter is to review the factors that may have limited the CIT's application to real-world criminal investigations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 151 - 170
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

Anderson, N., Herriot, P., and Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where we are now, and where do we go from here?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, T. B., McFall, R. M., and Shoham, V. (2009). Current status and future prospects of clinical psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(2), 67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barland, G. H. (1999). American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 32 (3), 16–17.
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2002). Effects of questions' repetition and variation on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test: a reexamination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 972–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Bradley, M. T., and Ainsworth, D. (1984). Alcohol and the psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Janisse, M. P. (1981). Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures. Psychophysiology, 18(3), 307–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, M. (2005, November 2). A 10th grader's stomach lie detector test. National Public Radio. Retrieved June 2, 2009 at www.npr.org/templates/story/story. php?storyId=4986415.
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
Crane, H. W. (1914–15). A study in association reaction and reaction time: with an attempted application of results in determining the presence of guilty knowledge. Psychological Monographs, 18(4), 1–73.Google Scholar
Elaad, E. (1998). The challenge of the concealed knowledge polygraph test. Expert Evidence, 6(3), 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1997). Effects of item repetitions and variations on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 34(5), 587–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2006). Finger pulse waveform length in the detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61(2), 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(5), 757–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Employee Polygraph Protection Act (1988). Public Law 100–347, 100th Congress.
Farwell, L.A., and Donchin, E. (1989). Detection of guilty knowledge with ERPs. Psychophysiology, 26(4a), S8.Google 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
Fukuda, K. (2001). Eye blinks: new indices for the detection of deception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hikita, Y., and Suzuki, A. (1965). An experimental study on the reliability of the judgments between CQT technique and POT technique. National Research Institute of Police Science Bulletin (Polygraph Report), 21, 23–64. Text in Japanese.Google 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
Honts, C. R., and Kircher, J. C. (1995). Legends of the concealed knowledge test: Lykken's distributional scoring system fails to detect countermeasures. Psychophysiology, 32(S1), S41.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: the case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, Saks, M. J., and Sanders, J. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Volume 2 (pp. 446–483). St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
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
Iacono, W. G. (1991). Can we determine the accuracy of polygraph tests? In Ackles, P. K., Jennings, J. R., and Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology (pp. 201–201). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., and Lykken, D. T. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: the case against polygraph tests. In Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., and Sanders, J. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Volume 2 (pp. 483–538). St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., Boisvenu, G. A., and Fleming, J. A. (1984). Effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iacono, W. G., Cerri, A. M., Patrick, C. J., and Fleming, J. A. (1992). Use of antianxiety drugs as countermeasures in the detection of guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 60–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Imamura, Y., Yamaoka, K., and Suzuki, A. (1960). An experimental study on the polygraph test: answer and response. Reports of the National Research Institute of Police Science, 13, 248–253. Text in Japanese; English abstract.Google Scholar
Keeler, L. (1930). A method for detecting deception. American Journal of Police Science, 1(1), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konieczny, J. (2007). An attempt to falsify the results of a polygraph test through the implementation of false memory: a case study. European Polygraph, 1(2), 117–121.Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Schroeder, L ., Maldjian, J. A., Gur, R. C., McDonald, S., Ragland, J. D., O' Brien, C.P., and Childress, A. R. (2002). Brain activity during simulated deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage, 15(3), 727–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 2, 164–177.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1932). The Nature of Human Conflicts, translated by Gantt, W. H.New York: Liveright, Inc.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(4), 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1988). Detection of guilty knowledge: a comment on Forman and McCauley. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 303–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
Miretzky, D. (2007). View of research from practice: voices of teachers. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, Y. (1978). A study of skin resistance response, photoplethysmograph vasomotor response and eye movement as indices of lie detection. Reports of the National Research Institute of Police Science, 31(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Munro, E. (2002). The role of theory in social work research: a further contribution to the debate. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, M. (2002). Practical use of the Concealed Information Test for criminal investigation in Japan. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
O'Toole, D. M., Yuille, J. C., Patrick, C. J. and Iacono, W. G. (1994). Alcohol and the physiological detection of deception: arousal and memory influences. Psychophysiology, 31(3), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavlidis, I., Eberhardt, N. L. and Levine, J. A. (2002). Seeing through the face of deception. Nature, 415, 35.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(3), 57–61.Google Scholar
Podlesny, 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(3). Last accessed on June 2, 2009 at www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2003/podlesny.htm.Google Scholar
Podlesny, J. A. and Raskin, D. C. (1978). Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 15(4), 344–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podlesny, J. A., Nimmich, K. W., and Budowle, B. (1995). A lack of operable case facts restricts applicability of the guilty knowledge deception detection method in FBI criminal investigations: a technical report. U.S. Department of Justice. Quantico, VA.
Raskin, D. C., and Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In Kleiner, (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 1–47). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runkel, J. E. (1936). Luria's motor method and word association in the study of deception. Journal of General Psychology, 15, 23–27.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
Thoneey, J., Kanachi, M., Sasaki, H., and Hatayama, T. (2005). Eye blinking as a lie-detection index in an emotionally arousing context. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 64, 58–67.Google Scholar
Timm, H. W. (1989). Methodological considerations affecting the utility of incorporating innocent subjects into the design of guilty knowledge polygraph experiments. Polygraph, 18(3), 143–157.Google Scholar
Uruno, F., and Narai, J. (1956). An experimental study of lie detection. Reports of the National Institute of Police Science, 117–129. Text in Japanese, English abstract.Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Clercq, A., and Koster, E. H. W. (2004). Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating orienting and defensive responses. Psychophysiology, 41(3), 461–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, W. (2005). Polygraph testing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 74(4), 10–13.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. T. (1981). Relationships between experimental and clinical psychology: the case of behavior therapy. International Journal of Psychology, 16(4), 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winslow, R. (2009) A Comparative Criminology Tour of the World. www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/asia_pacific/japan.html. San Diego State University. Retrieved September 28, 2009.Google Scholar
Yamamura, T. and Miyata, Y. (1990). Development of the polygraph technique in Japan for detection of deception. Forensic Science International, 44, 257–271.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
×