1981
DOI: 10.1126/science.7209522
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Meprobamate Reduces Accuracy of Physiological Detection of Deception

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

1984
1984
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, attempts were made to shed light on the theoretical basis of the CIT effect – the enhanced responses elicited by the significant stimuli (e.g., Gustafson and Orne, 1963, 1965; Lieblich et al, 1970; Ben-Shakhar, 1977; Ben-Shakhar and Lieblich, 1982; Verschuere et al, 2004, 2007). Third, many studies examined the effects of various factors on the outcomes of the CIT (e.g., the effect of type of verbal responses to the CIT questions, Kugelmass et al, 1967; Horneman and O’Gorman, 1985; the effect of drugs, Waid et al, 1981a; Iacono et al, 1984). Finally, factors that may limit the applicability of the CIT have been examined (e.g., the vulnerability of the CIT to countermeasures, Ben-Shakhar and Dolev, 1996; Honts et al, 1996; the effect of leakage of critical CIT items to innocent suspects, Bradley and Warfield, 1984; Bradley and Rettinger, 1992).…”
Section: Methods Of Psychophysiological Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, attempts were made to shed light on the theoretical basis of the CIT effect – the enhanced responses elicited by the significant stimuli (e.g., Gustafson and Orne, 1963, 1965; Lieblich et al, 1970; Ben-Shakhar, 1977; Ben-Shakhar and Lieblich, 1982; Verschuere et al, 2004, 2007). Third, many studies examined the effects of various factors on the outcomes of the CIT (e.g., the effect of type of verbal responses to the CIT questions, Kugelmass et al, 1967; Horneman and O’Gorman, 1985; the effect of drugs, Waid et al, 1981a; Iacono et al, 1984). Finally, factors that may limit the applicability of the CIT have been examined (e.g., the vulnerability of the CIT to countermeasures, Ben-Shakhar and Dolev, 1996; Honts et al, 1996; the effect of leakage of critical CIT items to innocent suspects, Bradley and Warfield, 1984; Bradley and Rettinger, 1992).…”
Section: Methods Of Psychophysiological Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the CQT, primed participants were only more detectable if their arousal during the crime was increased by making the situation appear more threatening to them. Waid, Orne, Cook, and Orne (1981) demonstrated the effectiveness of a tranquilizer (400 mg meprobamate) given 30 min prior to the GKT in reducing the detection of deception. Eleven male participants took part in each of the following four groups: innocent; "guilty" with no medication; "guilty" with placebo; and "guilty" with meprobamate.…”
Section: Eda In the Detection Of Deceptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other researchers employed measures of EDA to examine dimensions of emotion such as fear, sadness, and joy (Bayley, 1928;Linde, 1928;Waller, 1918). The sensitivity of EDA to variations in emotional experience ultimately led to its use in the detection of deception, which is still a popular application of EDA today (Waid & Orne, 1982).…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%