Antisocial behavior patterns have been hypothesized to result in part from a reduced physiological component of fear, anxiety, and avoidance responses. Electrodermal correlates of antisocial personality have been consistent with such a model, but evidence that the reduced electrodermal response (EDR) of sociopathic and delinquency-prone individuals actually plays a role in their behavior is sparse. This article examines whether the reduced EDR of undersocialized individuals should be conceptualized in terms of reduced inhibitory control rather than in terms of reduced aversive processes and whether the reduced EDR actually relates to relevant behavior of undersocialized young adults. Subjects high and low on a socialization scale (California Psychological Inventory) performed a nonstressful response-conflict (or interference) task while the EDR was recorded. As predicted by the weak inhibitory conflict than on control trials less frequently than did high-socialization subjects and, correspondingly, committed more errors by failing to inhibit a dominant behavioral response.

Three closely related experiments tested the effects of attention, as indexed by subsequent memory, on electrodermal detection of information. A total of 62 male college students attempted to conceal six critical items of information from a polygraph examiner recording their electrodermal response (EDR). In the polygraph test the subject was asked if any of a list of 24 words, one every 10-15 sec, were critical items he was concealing. The list was comprised of three semantically similar control words along with each critical word. Afterward, without forewarning, a second experimenter asked the subject to remember all the words he had been asked about on the test. Deceptive subjects who gave a larger EDR to critical than to control words more often than could be expected by chance (i.e.. were correctly detected as deceptive) remembered more control words than did other deceptive subjects who escaped detection. The results are interpreted to mean that the less thoroughly a subject processes the test words, as indexed by later memory, the less likely he is to be detected.

Normal male subjects attempted to deceive an experimenter recording electrodermal, respiratory, an cardiovascular activity. Those who had ingested a placebo or nothing were detected with statistically significant frequency on the basis of their phasic electrodermal responses, which clearly distinguished them from truthful suspects. That was not the case with deceptive subjects who had ingested 400 milligrams of meprobamate, nor did the examiner detect which subjects had received the drug.

Fifteen college students attempted to deceive a professional polygraph examiner, while 15 others who had nothing to hide also submitted to the examination. The examiner was blind as to whether each subject was deceptive or truthful. Using the skin conductance response (SCR), significant discrimination was made between deceptive and truthful subjects with both “guilty person” and “guilty knowledge” polygraph tests. On both types of test, however, subjects who were not detected were significantly less socialized (Socialization Scale of the California Psychological Inventory) than those who were detected. This reduced susceptibility to detection was mediated by a reduced SCR to deception among low‐socialization subjects. Among innocent subjects the highly socialized were more responsive electrodermally throughout the test, leading some of them to be misclassified as deceptive on at least one test. Implications of the results for both detection of deception and the construct of socialization are discussed.