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.

The Concealed Information Test (CIT) provides a valid tool for psychophysiological detection of concealed knowledge. However, its precise theoretical underpinnings remain a matter of debate. The differential physiological responses elicited by concealed, relevant items, relative to control items, were traditionally explained as reflecting an Orienting Response (OR). According to an alternative account, these responses reflect attempts to inhibit arousal. The present study examined whether and to what extent CIT detection efficiency is affected by instructions aimed at manipulating Arousal Inhibition (AI). One-hundred and forty-seven undergraduate students completed a CIT, while electrodermal, cardiac and respiratory measures were recorded. Half of the participants were requested to imagine that they are suspected of committing a crime and were motivated to avoid detection (presumably eliciting both OR and AI), while the other half were requested to imagine that they are witnesses of a crime and were motivated to be detected (presumably eliciting OR only). All participants were further requested to remain silent throughout the test. In both conditions, concealed items led to a similar increase in skin conductance as compared to the control items. However, the typically observed heart rate deceleration and respiratory suppression were found in suspects, but not in witnesses. These data imply that different mechanisms drive the responding of different psychophysiological measures used in the CIT, with skin conductance reflecting OR, and heart rate and respiration primarily reflecting AI.

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen's d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.'s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the