Memory detection with the <scp>C</scp>oncealed <scp>I</scp>nformation <scp>T</scp>est: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data

Meijer, Ewout H.; Selle, Nathalie klein; Elber, Lotem; Ben‐Shakhar, Gershon

doi:10.1111/psyp.12239

Cited by 198 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 294 publications

(329 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

200

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in contrast with the results reported in CIT studies using ANS (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Meijer et al, 2014) and ERP measures (Ellwanger et al, 1996), and we therefore additionally examined the effect of motivation using only CIT studies. This analysis, in which we excluded the 2 CIT studies that reported having motivated participants with an incentive, CI [1.084; 1.687], yet here the difference was not significant, Q(1) = 1.073, p = .300.…”

Section: Moderator Analysescontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…The motivation impairment effect has initially been observed in research using verbal and nonverbal cues of deception, where a stronger motivation to lie paradoxically led to stronger differences between lying and truth telling (DePaulo et al, 2003), possibly due to greater pressure to lie successfully. The motivation impairment effect has also been observed in CIT studies using skin conductance measures (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Meijer et al, 2014), but not with RTs (Kleinberg & Verschuere, 2015) or event-related potentials (Ellwanger et al, 1996). There are at least two possible explanations for the detrimental role of motivation on the RT deception effect.…”

Section: What Moderated the Rt Deception Effect?mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…6 We originally planned to analyze the influence of stimulus category, as this was a significant moderator in two meta-analyses on the autonomic CIT effect (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Meijer et al, 2014). With stimuli coded as real crime (k = 0), mock crime (k = 17), autobiographical (k = 50), or other (k = 47), there was no significant difference between categories, Q(2) = 0.219, p = .896.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Suchotzki¹,

Verschuere²,

Bockstaele³

et al. 2017

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

219

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lie detection techniques are frequently used, but most of them have been criticized for the lack of empirical support for their predictive validity and presumed underlying mechanisms. This situation has led to increased efforts to unravel the cognitive mechanisms underlying deception and to develop a comprehensive theory of deception. A cognitive approach to deception has reinvigorated interest in reaction time (RT) measures to differentiate lies from truths and to investigate whether lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling. Here, we provide the results of a meta-analysis of 114 studies (n = 3307) using computerized RT paradigms to assess the cognitive cost of lying. Results revealed a large standardized RT difference, even after correction for publication bias (d = 1.049; 95% CI [0.930; 1.169]), with a large heterogeneity amongst effect sizes. Moderator analyses revealed that the RT deception effect was smaller, yet still large, in studies in which participants received instructions to avoid detection. The autobiographical Implicit Association Test produced smaller effects than the Concealed Information Test, the Sheffield Lie Test, and the Differentiation of Deception paradigm. An additional meta-analysis (17 studies, n = 348) showed that, like other deception measures, RT deception measures are susceptible to countermeasures. Whereas our meta-analysis corroborates current cognitive approaches to deception, the observed heterogeneity calls for further research on the boundary conditions of the cognitive cost of deception. RT-based measures of deception may have potential in applied settings, but countermeasures remain an important challenge. LYING TAKES TIME 3

show abstract

Section: Moderator Analysescontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: What Moderated the Rt Deception Effect?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Suchotzki¹,

Verschuere²,

Bockstaele³

et al. 2017

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

219

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, further independent studies would be needed for a thorough validation of this method. In particular, it should be noted that we have used personal items (family names) as probes in our study, which, in the case of P300-based studies, generally leads to higher detection accuracies when compared to crime details (e.g., a weapon used in a recent crime; Meijer et al, 2014). Therefore, future studies should also assess the validity of the method when using crime details, e.g., in a mock-crime, preferably in field settings.…”

Section: Effects Of "Small Group" Countermeasures On the P Vs Imax Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

The first independent study on the complex trial protocol version of the P300-based concealed information test: Corroboration of previous findings and highlights on vulnerabilities

Lukács

Weiss

Dalos

et al. 2016

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than a dozen studies of the Complex Trial Protocol (CTP) version of the P300-based Concealed Information Test have been published since its introduction (Rosenfeld et al., 2008), and it has been fairly consistently proven to provide high accuracy and strong resistance to countermeasures . However, no independent authors have verified these findings until now. In the present, first independent study, we corroborate the accuracy and countermeasure-resistance of the CTP, when the probe item (critical presented information, e.g., crime detail; P) vs. all irrelevant items (Iall) comparison is used for classifying participants as guilty or innocent, but we also show that the CTP is severely vulnerable to countermeasures, when the P vs. the irrelevant item with the largest P300 responses (Imax) comparison is used.This latter measure can be defeated by creating "oddball" items among the irrelevant items (through targeting them with covert responses), and thereby making their P300 responses statistically indistinguishable from those of the probe item. Practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…These meta-analyses were based on studies investigating response times (Bond & DePaulo, 2006;Suchotzki, Verschuere, Van Bockstaele, & Ben-Shakhar, 2017), electrodermal measures (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Meijer, Klein Selle, Elber, & Ben-Shakhar, 2014), the P3 amplitude (Meijer et al, 2014), and functional magnet resonance imaging data (Christ, Van Essen, Watson, Brubaker, & McDermott, 2009). These meta-analyses incorporated exclusively deception tasks in legal settings entitled as guilty knowledge tests (GKT) or concealed information tests (CIT, Lykken, 1959, 1974Verschuere & Ben-Shakhar, 2011).…”

Section: Previous Meta-analyses On Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of the P3 amplitude in tasks requiring deception in legal and social contexts

Leue¹,

Beauducel²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In deception tasks the parietal P3 amplitude of the event-related potential indicates either recognition of salient stimuli (larger P3 following salient information) or mental effort (smaller P3 following demanding information). This meta-analysis (k = 77) investigated population effect sizes () for conceptual and methodological a-priori moderators (study design, pre-task scenario, context of deception tasks, and P3 quantification). Within-subjects designs show evidence of the underlying cognitive processes, between-subjects designs allow for comparisons of cognitive processes in culprits vs. innocents. Committed vs. imagined mock crime scenarios yield larger . Deception tasks with a legal context result in almost twice as large  than deception tasks with social-interactional and social-biographical contexts. Peak-to-peak P3 quantification resulted in larger  than other quantifications.Counter-measure techniques in 3-stimulus protocols reduce the discriminability of concealed vs. truthful P3 amplitudes. Depending on stimulus knowledge, deception tasks provide evidence for the salience hypothesis and the mental effort hypothesis, respectively.

show abstract

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

Cited by 198 publications

References 294 publications

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

The first independent study on the complex trial protocol version of the P300-based concealed information test: Corroboration of previous findings and highlights on vulnerabilities

A meta-analysis of the P3 amplitude in tasks requiring deception in legal and social contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About