Accuracy rates with polygraphs using concealed information tests (CITs) depend on memory for crime details. Some participants read instructions on murdering a dummy victim that specified exact crime details asked on the subsequent CIT. Others read instructions not stating details, but still requiring interaction with the exact same details for the crime. For example, the murder weapon was under four heavy boxes. Instructions stated either “… remove the 4 boxes …” or “… remove the boxes …” Thus, each group removed four boxes, but only one group was primed with the number “4” beforehand. In addition, the victim unexpectedly shouted at some participants during the crime. An innocent group was not exposed to either manipulation. Memory, detection scores, and detection rates were lower for guilty participants not primed with details. Sound affected detection scores but not memory, and there was no interaction between the two factors. Information tests are limited by how crime information is received.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ben-ShakharG.ElaadE. (2002) Effects of questions' repetition and variation on the efficiency of the Guilty Knowledge Test: A re-examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 972–977.
2.
Ben-ShakharG.ElaadE. (2003) The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.
3.
Ben-ShakharG.FuredyJ. J. (1990) Theories and applications in the detection of deception. New York: Springer-Verlag.
4.
BradleyM. T.BarefootC. A. (2010) Eliciting information from groups: Social information and the Concealed Information Test. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(2), 109–115.
5.
BradleyM. T.CullenM. E.CarleS. B. (1996) Control question tests by police and laboratory polygraph operators on a mock crime and real events. Polygraph, 25, 1–12.
6.
BradleyM. T.MacLarenV. V.BlackM. E. (1996) The Control Question Test in polygraphic examinations with actual controls for truth. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 755–762.
7.
BradleyM. T.MacLarenV. V.CarleS. B. (1996) Deception and nondeception in guilty knowledge and guilty actions polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 153–160.
8.
BradleyM. T.RettingerJ. (1992) Awareness of crime relevant information and the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55–59.
9.
BradleyM. T.StoicaG. (2004) Diagnosing estimate distortion due to significance testing in literature on the detection of deception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 827–839.
10.
BradleyM. T.WarfieldJ. F. (1984) Innocence, information, and the Guilty Knowledge Test in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 683–689.
11.
BrandA.BradleyM. T.BestL. A.StoicaG. (2011) Multiple trials may yield exaggerated effect size estimates. Journal of General Psychology, 138, 1–11.
12.
CarmelD.DayanE.NavehA.RavehO.Ben-ShakharG. (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.
13.
CullenM. C.BradleyM. T. (2004) Positions of truthfully answered controls on Control Question Tests with the polygraph. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 167–176.
14.
ElaadE. (1990) Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–529.
15.
ElaadE.GintonA.JungmanN., (1992) Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 757–767.
16.
GamerM.KosiolD.VosselG. (2010) Strength of memory encoding affects physiological responses in the Guilty Actions Test. Biological Psychology, 83, 101–107.
17.
GamerM.RillH.VosselG.GödertH. W. (2006) Psychophysiological and vocal measures in the detection of guilty knowledge. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60, 76–87.
18.
JohnsonW. A.HawleyK. J.PleweS. H.ElliottJ. M. G.De WittM. J. (1990) Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 397–411.
19.
JokinenA.SanttilaP.RavajaN.PuttonenS. (2006) Salience of Guilty Knowledge Test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 175–184.
20.
LykkenD. T. (1959) The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.
21.
LykkenD. T. (1998) A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
MacLarenV. V. (2001) A quantitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 674–683.
23.
National Research Council. (2003) The polygraph and lie detection: Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24.
NahariG.Ben-ShakharG. (2011) Psychophysiological and behavioral measures for detecting concealed information: The role of memory for crime details. Psychophysiology, 48, 733–744.
25.
RevelleW.LoftusD. (1990) Individual differences and arousal: Implications for the study of mood and memory. Cognition & Emotion, 4, 209–237.
26.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.
