Estimating the Validity of the Guilty Knowledge Test From Simulated Experiments: The External Validity of Mock Crime Studies.

Carmel, David; Dayan, Eran; A, Naveh; Raveh, Ori; Ben‐Shakhar, Gershon

doi:10.1037/1076-898x.9.4.261

Cited by 102 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, as the relevance of the information about which participants lie is closely associated with participants' motivation, the relevance of information can be expected to influence the RT effect size. Numerous studies have shown larger CIT effects for relevant compared to less relevant information (e.g., Abe et al, 2006;Carmel, Dayan, Naveh, Raveh, & Ben-Shakhar, 2003;Gamer, Kosiol, & Vossel, 2010;Jokinen, Santtila, Ravaja, & Puttonen, 2006;Lieblich, Ben-Shakhar, & Kugelmass, 1976) and the same effect could be expected in RT paradigms. Yet, one could also expect information relevance to be related to participants' efforts during the task.…”

Section: Moderator Analysesmentioning

confidence: 73%

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

Section: Moderator Analysesmentioning

confidence: 73%

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

show abstract

“…Although laboratory studies are a critical complement to field work, it has been suggested that laboratory rewards for 'beating' the test lack the real world consequences associated with tests given in the field. Specifically, some researchers have argued that laboratory tests may overestimate the size of the concealed knowledge effect examiners can expect in the field (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Carmel, Dayan, Naveh, Raveh, & Ben-Shakhar, 2003;Elaad, 1990;Gronau et al, 2005). Although this conclusion is based on consistently larger effect sizes in laboratory settings than in the field, examining the influence of this difference on detection efficiency is less common.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Successful detection of verbal and visual concealed knowledge using an RT‐based paradigm

Seymour

Kerlin

2007

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of researchers are exploring variations of the Concealed Knowledge Test (CKT) as alternatives to traditional 'lie-detector' tests. For example, the response times (RT)-based CKT has been previously shown to accurately detect participants who possess privileged knowledge.Although several studies have reported successful RT-based tests, they have focused on verbal stimuli despite the prevalence of photographic evidence in forensic investigations. Related studies comparing pictures and phrases have yielded inconsistent results. The present work compared an RT-CKT using verbal phrases as stimuli to one using pictures of faces. This led to equally accurate and efficient tests using either stimulus type. Results also suggest that previous inconsistent findings may be attributable to study procedures that led to better memory for verbal than visual items. When memory for verbal phrases and pictures were equated, we found nearly identical detection accuracies.

show abstract

“…In Experiment 2, the difference was much less pronounced: Only 1.15 points, representing a moderate effect. The data indicate that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection and thereby extend item saliency effects from physiological measures (Carmel, Dayan, Naveh, Raveh, & Ben-Shakhar, 2003;Gamer & Berti, 2012;Gamer, Kosiol, & Vossel, 2010;Jokinen et al, 2006;Lieblich et al, 1976;Nahari & Ben-Shakhar, 2011;Peth, Vossel, & Gamer, 2012) to RTs. We think that the 21 use of an independent assessment of item saliency will be of great use in future research.…”

Section: Item Saliencymentioning

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

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

Estimating the Validity of the Guilty Knowledge Test From Simulated Experiments: The External Validity of Mock Crime Studies.

Cited by 102 publications

References 38 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.

Successful detection of verbal and visual concealed knowledge using an RT‐based paradigm

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About