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-5b777bbd6c-7mr9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T00:09:07.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Validity of the Concealed Information Test in realistic contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

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

Summary

Overview: Earlier field studies on the Concealed Information Test (CIT) are reviewed from a new perspective. Limitations of the studies as well as factors that account for the relatively large false negative rates are discussed. Two types of CIT practice, the pre-interrogation practice, which is mainly used in Japan, and the interrogation practice are identified and discussed. The advantages of each type of practice are described and suggestions for improvement are made.

The Concealed Information Test, also labeled the Guilty Knowledge Test (Lykken, 1959), is a method of psychophysiological detection that identifies information that knowledgeable (guilty) people do not wish to reveal and ignorant (innocent) people are unable to reveal (see Lykken, 1974, 1998).

Studies conducted in laboratory settings have indicated that the CIT is a highly valid method for differentiating between guilty and innocent participants. For example, Ben-Shakhar and Elaad (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of CIT laboratory studies using electrodermal responses and showed that under optimal conditions (i.e., using a mock crime procedure, motivational instructions, deceptive verbal response to the critical items, and at least five CIT questions) the CIT is highly efficient (i.e., the average effect size estimated under these conditions was 3.12 and the area under the ROC curve was 0.95).

However, field conditions are often less than optimal and typically differ drastically from the experimental conditions. It is therefore absolutely essential to conduct field studies that will provide a more comprehensive picture on the validity of the CIT in its forensic application.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 171 - 186
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. B. and Mertens, R. (2009). Limitations to the detection of deception: true and false recollections are poorly distinguished using an event-related potential procedure. Social Neuroscience, 4, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amato-Henderson, S. L., Honts, C. R., and Plaud, J. J. (1996). Effects of misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test. Psychophysiology, 33, S18 (abstract).Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of Human Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bamber, D. (1975). The area under the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12, 378–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the control question test (CQT). In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 103–126). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 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, 972–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, , G., and 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 ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and Applications in the Detection of Deception. New York: Springer-Verlag.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.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. (1997). Polygraph examiner awareness of crime-relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 107–120.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, 587–596.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, 197–209.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
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., and Medvec, V. (1998). The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginton, A., Daie, N., Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1982). A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granhag, P. A., and Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: on the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 189–200.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, 16–27.Google Scholar
Hira, S., Sasaki, M., Matsuda, T., Furumitsu, I., and Furedy, J. J. (2001). Pz-recorded P300 is highly accurate and sensitive to a memorial manipulation in an objective laboratory guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 38, S50.Google Scholar
Hira, S., Sasaki, M., Matsuda, T., Furumitsu, I., and Furedy, J. J. (2002). A year after the commission of a mock crime, the P300 amplitudes, but not reaction time, are sensitive guilty knowledge test indicators. Psychophysiology, 39, S42.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 Jennings, J. R., Ackles, P. K., and Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, Volume 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions – does innocence put innocents at risk?American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leo, R. A. (1992). From coercion to deception: the changing nature of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law and Social Change, 18, 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. America Psychologist, 29, 225–239.Google ScholarPubMed
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood. Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd edn. New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
Meissner, C. A., and Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He's guilty!”: investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakayama, M. (2002). Practical use of the concealed information test for criminal investigation in Japan. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 49–86). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
,National Research Council (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Podlesny, J. A. (1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 59–63.Google Scholar
Raskin, D. C. (1989). Polygraph techniques for the detection of deception. In Raskin, D. C. (ed.) Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 274–296). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Reid, J. E., and Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar

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
×