The Concealed Information Test is Susceptible to Misleading Information

Abstract

An approach toward detecting hidden knowledge is the Concealed Information Test (CIT). It relies on the memory of crime-relevant information. This study investigated whether its validity is susceptible to memory distortion by misleading information. A misleading information paradigm was employed to distort memory prior to an interrogation with a CIT. Forty-one participants watched a video with specific crime-related information. After a 1-week retention interval, misleading information was introduced. Afterward, a CIT was performed, followed by a threefold memory test. When misleading information was presented, memory performance was reduced, and no physiological response differences between crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant information were found. Without presenting misleading information, physiological responses differed between responses to crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant information. However, responses in all physiological measures also differed between misleading and irrelevant information. The results indicate that the CIT is susceptible to misleading information, which reduces its validity in specific constellations.

Is the CIT susceptible to misleading information? A constructive replication

“…Both of these factors are likely to diminish the CIT effect. Altogether this may explain the unusually small CIT effects reported by Volz et al [6]. Specifically, the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC) of three physiological measures (SCR, RLL, HR) ranged between 0.56 and 0.60 and did not significantly exceed chance level even in the control categories where no misinformation was introduced.…”

“…When considering the above conclusion, it is important to point out the disparities between the experimental design used by Volz and colleagues and an optimal CIT paradigm. These disparities shed doubt on whether the conclusions made by Volz et al [6] can be generalized. First, Volz et al [6] used an eyewitness paradigm, where participants encoded the crime‐relevant information by watching a video of a crime rather than by enacting a mock crime, which may weaken the CIT effect (see [23–25]).…”

“…These disparities shed doubt on whether the conclusions made by Volz et al [6] can be generalized. First, Volz et al [6] used an eyewitness paradigm, where participants encoded the crime‐relevant information by watching a video of a crime rather than by enacting a mock crime, which may weaken the CIT effect (see [23–25]). Second, in contrast to the recommendations made by both CIT researchers and practitioners to use only central items (i.e., objects directly related to the crime, see [10,14]), some critical items were peripheral (i.e., a picture or a drink standing in the room of the crime).…”

“…Research since the early 1960s has shown that the CIT is a valid tool for discriminating between knowledgeable (guilty) and unknowledgeable (innocent) individuals in laboratory settings. Weaknesses of this laboratory research have however been pointed out, calling into question the external validity of CIT studies [6–11]. Unfortunately, however, it is extremely difficult to conduct methodologically sound field studies in this area (e.g., [7]).…”

“…Such differences were only revealed with the frontal slow wave component. In contrast to Volz et al [11,22], Volz et al [6] used a more externally valid CIT paradigm, where participants were instructed to conceal their knowledge of the crime details presented in the video. As this is the only study in which participants were motivated to conceal , it was currently decided to conceptually replicate it.…”