Detecting concealed information with reaction times: Validity and comparison with the polygraph

Verschuere, Bruno; Crombez, Geert; Degrootte, Tessie; Rosseel, Yves

doi:10.1002/acp.1601

Cited by 71 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly this finding is consistent with those found in previous lie detection studies where researchers explored behavioral indices related to deception [20][21][22][23][24]. These studies have shown that people produce their responses slower when they have to lie than when they can tell a truth.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Emotional Consequence of Telling a Lie

Sato¹,

Iwasaki²

2013

UCMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally, arousal increases when telling a lie, as indicated in psychophysiological studies about lie detection. But the emotional valence induced by lying is unknown, though intuition indicates that it may be negative. Indeed, the EDA (electrodermal activity), used in such studies, only shows arousal changes during an emotional response. In this study, we used two tasks in order to examine the emotional valence induced by lying. At the beginning, in the deceptive task, participants answered "no" to every question regarding the nature of displayed playing cards. Therefore, they told a lie about specific cards. Their EDA was recorded all along the task. Secondly, in the figure estimation task, they assessed pictures positively or negatively after looking at playing cards visibly or subliminally as prime stimuli. We expected them to tend to estimate figures negatively when cards relevant to deception had been previously shown. This would mean that an affective priming effect due to telling a lie actually occurred. All in all, this effect was found only when prime stimuli had been displayed visibly. This result suggests that lying per se induces negative emotions even without motivation or punishment due to lying. Furthermore, we found that such effect was all the more obvious in participants whose EDA changes were salient while lying.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Emotional Consequence of Telling a Lie

Sato¹,

Iwasaki²

2013

UCMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…were excluded from RT analyses, as well as any correct RT smaller than 150ms or greater than 800ms (cf Verschuere et al, 2010), see Footnote1.…”

Section: Rt-based Memory Detection Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

Verschuere¹,

Kleinberg²,

Theocharidou³

2015

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was an Internet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection. RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was anInternet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection.Max 6

show abstract

“…Whereas we included only within-subject comparisons, the previous CIT meta-analyses either combined between and within-subject designs or only included between-subject designs. In order to compare skin conductance and RT measures, more research is needed in which these measures are simultaneously assessed, preferably under the most optimal conditions for each measure (e.g., Verschuere, Crombez, Degrootte, & Rosseel, 2010). Combining RTs and skin conductance in concealed information tests seems promising, as recent research suggests a dissociation between those measures:…”

Section: What Moderated the Rt Deception Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Suchotzki¹,

Verschuere²,

Bockstaele³

et al. 2017

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

204

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

Detecting concealed information with reaction times: Validity and comparison with the polygraph

Cited by 71 publications

References 28 publications

Emotional Consequence of Telling a Lie

Emotional Consequence of Telling a Lie

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About