Practical guidelines for developing a CIT

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511975196.017

16 - Practical guidelines for developing a CIT

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Ewout Meijer ,

Bruno Verschuere and

Gershon Ben-Shakhar

Edited by

Bruno Verschuere ,

Gershon Ben-Shakhar and

Ewout Meijer

Show author details

Ewout Meijer: Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Bruno Verschuere: Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar: Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Bruno Verschuere: Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar: Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ewout Meijer: Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Overview: In this chapter, we will formulate guidelines on how to develop a good CIT. These guidelines are based upon empirical data from CIT research as well as on theory on memory and orienting. We will outline how best to formulate questions and answer alternatives, how to conduct, score, and report the outcomes of the test. If these guidelines are followed, we are confident that the CIT can make an important contribution to police investigations.

The present book reviewed and summarized a large database of research on the Concealed Information Test (CIT), and a compelling case for its widespread adoption by law enforcement agencies was made (see Chapter 1). Clearly, designing adequate test questions is crucial for successful implementation and, as outlined in Chapter 8, good CIT questions need to fulfil two criteria. First, they need to refer to crime-relevant details that are present in the perpetrator's memory. Second, this information does not need to be known to an innocent suspect. The latter criterion primarily poses practical challenges to the police investigation process. Details of the crime should, for example, not be released through the media, nor be disclosed to a suspect in any interrogation preceding a CIT. The former criterion – what information is present in a suspect's memory – on the other hand, is not under the control of the investigative authorities. In this chapter, we will formulate guidelines on how to develop a good CIT, thereby maximizing detection efficiency and ensuring proper reporting.

Type: Chapter
Information: Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
, pp. 293 - 302

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975196.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ben-Shakhar, G. (1985). Standardization within individuals: a simple method to neutralize individual differences in skin conductance. Psychophysiology, 22, 292–299.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2002). Effects of questions' repetition and variation on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test: a reexamination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 972–977.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ben-Shakhar, G., Frost, R., Gati, I., and Kresh, Y. (1996). Is an apple a fruit? Semantic relatedness as reflected by psychophysiological responsivity. Psychophysiology, 33, 671–679.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carmel, D., Dayan, E., Naveh, A., Raveh, O., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (2003). Estimating the validity of the guilty knowledge test from simulated experiments: the external validity of mock crime studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 261–269.Google Scholar PubMed

Christianson, S. A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284–309.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Doob, A. N., and Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups – partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 187–293.Google Scholar

Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1997). Effects of item repetitions and variations on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 34, 587–596.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Engelkamp, J. (1998). Memory for Actions. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Gamer, M., Kosiol, D., and Vossel, G. (2010). Strength of memory encoding affects physiological responses in the Guilty Actions Test. Biological Psychology, 83, 101–107.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., and Vossel, G. (2008). Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiology and Behavior, 95, 333–340.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Graham, F. K., and Clifton, R. K. (1966). Heart-rate change as a component of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305–320.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jokinen, A., Santtila, P., Ravaja, N., and Puttonen, S. (2006). Salience of guilty knowledge test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 174–184.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kircher, J. C., and Raskin, D. C. (2002). Computer methods for the psychophysiological detection of deception. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 287–326). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kopelman, M. D. (2002). Psychogenic amnesia. In Baddeley, A. D., Kopelman, M. D., and Wilson, B. A. (eds.), Handbook of Memory Disorders, 2nd edn. (pp. 451–471). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., and Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Lynn, R. (1966). Attention, Arousal and the Orienting Reaction. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Rosenthal, R., and Fode, K. L. (1961). The problem of experimenter outcome-bias. In Ray, D. P. (ed.), Series Research in Social Psychology. Washington, DC: National Institute of Social and Behavioral Science.Google Scholar

Sechrest, L. (1963). Incremental validity: a recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 153–158.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shapiro, D. (2002). Renewing the scientist-practitioner model. The Psychologist, 15, 232–234.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Getting things under control. The case of clever Hans. In How to Think Straight about Psychology (pp. 85–102). Boston: Allen and Bacon.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognitive Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar

Szucko, J. J., and Kleinmuntz, B. (1981). Statistical versus clinical lie detection. American Psychologist, 36, 488–496.CrossRef Google Scholar

Timm, H. W. (1989). Methodological considerations affecting the utility of incorporating innocent subjects into the design of guilty knowledge polygraph experiments. Polygraph, 18, 143–157.Google Scholar

Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting. Psychological Review, 64, 49–60.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Verschuere, B., and Crombez, G. (2008). Deja vu! The effect of previewing test items on the validity of the Concealed Information polygraph Test. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 287–297.CrossRef Google Scholar

White, A. M., Matthews, D. B., and Best, P. J. (2000). Ethanol, memory, and hippocampal function: a review of recent findings. Hippocampus, 10, 88–93.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed