Efficiency of GSR detection of information with repeated presentation of series of stimuli in two motivational states.

Lieblich, Israel; Naftali, Gideon; Shmueli, J; Kugelmass, Sol

doi:10.1037/h0035781

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that the pattern and/ or variability of measured physiologic responses to the questions asked during each PDD test did not change significantly over repeated administration of the tests, nor did the response pattern change significantly between days 1 and 2 -with the exception of GSR-Ltc responses. This result is interpreted as supporting those of ElIson et al 1952, Lieblich et al (1974), Grimsley and Yankee (1986), and Yankee (1993) that there were no statistically significant differences in the detection of veracity with repeated testing. While veracity detection rates were not determined, the conclusion that differential responding does not change with question series repetition supports the proposal that decision accuracy does not decrease with repeated testing (Grimsley & Yankee, 1986;Iacono, Boisvenu, & Fleming, 1984;Leiblich et aI., 1974).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Efficacy of Repeated Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Testing

Dollins¹,

Cestaro²,

Pettit

1998

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to determine how reliable and valid a Zone Comparison PDD test is when the same individuals are administered the same test on two different occasions. Seventy-two subjects were used in an analog mock crime study using a Zone Comparison test format. Thirty-six subjects were randomly assigned to "innocent" and thirty-six to "guilty" programmed conditions. In addition, each subject was assigned to either an "accurate", "inaccurate", or "no" feedback treatment group. The overall accuracy for Tests 1 and 2 was 67% and 61 % respectively. Excluding the inconclusive decisions, the accuracy for Test 1 was 94% and 88% for Test 2. Both Test results discriminated between guilty and innocent subjects. There were no significant differences: between the guilty subjects on Test 1 and Test 2; between the innocent subjects on Test I and Test 2; nor between the guilty and innocent subjects on Test 1. However, the accuracy for the guilty subjects on Test 2 was significantly different from the accuracy rate for innocent subjects on Test 2. There was no significant difference for the innocent subjects between Test 1 and Test 2, and no significant differences between feedback groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Efficacy of Repeated Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Testing

Dollins¹,

Cestaro²,

Pettit

1998

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Success in the detection task is defined by these authors as a function of the demand characteristics of the situation; in some situations it could mean being detected by the polygraph, and in others it could mean avoiding detection. This explanation received experimental support from the above mentioned studies (Gustafson & Ome, 1963, 1965b; it has some difficulty, however, in accounting for the result of a study by Thackray and Ome (1968) which showed no significant decrease of detection rate in a condition where the subjects were not aware of the fact that they were tested by a polygraph, and for the results obtained by Lieblich, Naftali, Shmueli, and Kugelmass (1974), which showed no effect of motivation to deceive on name detection rates. Lykken (1959Lykken ( , 1960 opposed the assumption held by many field investigators that there is a distinct pattem of physiological activity associated with lying.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

A Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information

Ben‐Shakhar

1977

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study is to test two predictions of the “Dichotomization Theory” on the detection of information. This theory relates the differential autonomic responsivity in the detection of information task to basic psychophysiological phenomena—the orienting response and its habituation. The theory assumes that two independent habituation processes take place in the typical detection experiment: that of the relevant stimuli and that of the neutral stimuli, with a complete generalization of habituation within each stimulus category. It is suggested that this theory can explain results of past experiments unaccounted for by any of the other theoretical approaches in the area. Two predictions of the dichotomization theory were tested using the skin conductance response in a “card test” type of experiment. Two hundred subjects participated in the experiment and were randomly assigned to five equal‐sized groups. The results tend to support the present theoretical approach. On the baas of the results of the present study and previous ones, it is suggested that a two‐factor theory could be a sufficient explanation for the detection phenomenon. One factor relates to the role of habituation in the detection task which is described by the dichotomization theory, and the second factor relates to possible “signal value” property of the relevant stimulus.

show abstract

“…A motivation manipulation can be achieved either through instructions (see, e.g., those employed originally by Gustafson & Orne, 1963, where participants are informed that only people with high intelligence and self-control can avoid detection), or by promising an incentive for the desirable outcome (e.g., Bradley & Warfield, 1984) or a punishment for an undesirable outcome (e.g., Lykken, 1959). This factor was examined by many previous studies (e.g., Gustafson & Orne, 1963, 1965aLieblich, Naftali, Shmueli, & Kugelmass, 1974). Although the results of these studies were not always consistent, the previous meta-analysis (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003) revealed that, across studies, motivation to avoid detection was associated with significantly larger SCR effect size (d = 1.84) as compared with conditions where no motivational instructions were given and no incentive was promised (d = 1.36).…”

Section: Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Concealed Information Test (CIT) uses psychophysiological measures to determine the presence or absence of crime-related information in a suspect's memory. We conducted a meta-analysis on the validity of the CIT based on four physiological measures-skin conductance response (SCR), respiration line length (RLL), changes in heart rate (HR), and enhanced amplitudes of the P300 component of the event-related potential (P300). This meta-analysis relied on laboratory studies that used either the mock-crime or the personal-item paradigm. Results showed a mean effect size (d*) of 1.55 for SCR, 1.11 for RLL, 0.89 for HR, and 1.89 for P300. However, P300 outperformed SCR only in the personal-item paradigm, but not in the mock-crime paradigm. Motivation level, number of questions, publication year, and the inclusion of innocent participants emerged as significant moderators for the SCR, while only the type of paradigm used moderated the P300 effect.

show abstract

Efficiency of GSR detection of information with repeated presentation of series of stimuli in two motivational states.

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Efficacy of Repeated Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Testing

Efficacy of Repeated Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Testing

A Further Study of the Dichotomization Theory in Detection of Information

Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About