Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T05:18:15.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Leakage of information to innocent suspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
M. T. Bradley ,
Clair A. Barefoot  and
Andrea M. Arsenault
Edited by
Bruno Verschuere ,
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Ewout Meijer
M. T. Bradley
Affiliation:
University of New Brunswick
Clair A. Barefoot
Affiliation:
University of Regina
Andrea M. Arsenault
Affiliation:
University of New Brunswick
Bruno Verschuere
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ewout Meijer
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Overview: A key assumption of the CIT is that the relevant information is known by guilty suspects but not by innocent suspects. Leakage of the relevant information to innocent suspects thereby presents a conundrum for those involved with the development and administration of tests designed to discover concealed information. Leakage is potentially important as it may not be possible to discriminate responding by innocent and guilty suspects to leaked information. This would result in erroneous classification of the innocent suspects. This chapter examines theory and empirical results to better understand: (1) the issues involved in leakage; (2) to ascertain whether situations involving leakage can contribute to a better understanding of information detection; and (3) to explore possible ways of either managing or preventing leakage so that it does not contaminate information detection situations.

The nature of CITs

Behavioral, physiological, emotional, and cognitive reactions to items of information can be used to associate individuals with specific knowledge. A great deal of attention has been paid to make use of these reactions to discover who has knowledge of issues under investigation. In the investigatory and criminal realm, knowledgeable people, however, typically attempt to conceal their knowledge. Unfortunately, most people, including those who routinely engage in deception detection, are not very accurate in discerning if there is hidden information (Bond and DePaulo, 2006; Sato and Nihie, 2009). Physiologically the situation is different: the reactions are less readily under conscious control. They are not necessarily simple but have been well studied and described.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 187 - 199
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.)

References

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(1), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gronau, N., and Elaad, E. (1999). Leakage of relevant information to innocent examinees in the CIT: an attempt to reduce false positive outcomes by introducing target stimuli. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 651–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BondJr., C. F., and DePaulo, B. M. (2006) Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Ainsworth, D. (1984). Alcohol and the psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Barefoot, C. A. (2010). Eliciting information from groups: social information and the guilty knowledge test. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 42(2), 109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., and Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., and Warfield, J. F. (1984). Innocence, Information and the CIT in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21(6), 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., Fleming, I., and MacDonald, P. (1989). Amnesia, feeling of knowing and the Guilty Knowledge Test. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21(2), 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., MacLaren, V. V., and Carle, S. B. (1996). Deception and non-deception in Guilty Knowledge and Guilty Actions Polygraph Tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E. (2009). Effects of context and state of guilt on the detection of concealed crime information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(3), 225–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989). Stimulus novelty and significance as determinants of electrodermal responsivity: the serial position effect. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Furedy, J. J., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge. Psychophysiology, 28(2), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M., Godert, H. W., Keth, A., Rill, H.-G., and Vossel, G. (2008). Electrodermal and phasic heart rate responses in the guilty actions test: comparing guilty examinees to informed and uninformed innocents. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 69, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giesen, M., and Rollison, M. A. (1980). Guilty Knowledge vs innocent associations: effects of trait anxiety and stimulus context on skin conductance. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honts, C. R., and Amato, S. L. (2002). Countermeasures. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horneman, C. J., and O'Gorman, J. G. (1985). Detectability in the card test as a function of the subject's verbal response. Psychophysiology, 3(2), 330–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detector industry. The American Psychologist, 9(10), 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1981). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
MacLaren, V. V. (2001). A quantitative review of the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 674–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakayama, M. (2002). Practical use of the concealed information test for criminal investigation in Japan. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 49–86). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sato, T., and Nihie, Y. (2009). Sex differences in beliefs about cues to deception. Psychological Reports, 104, 759–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stern, R. M., Breen, J. P., Watanabe, T., and Perry, B. S. (1981). Effect of feedback of physiological information on responses to innocent associations and guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 677–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verschuere, B., and Crombez, G. (2008). Déjà vu! The effect of previewing test items on the validity of the Concealed Information Test. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 14, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Clercq, A., and Koster, E. (2004). Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating defensive and orienting responses. Psychophysiology, 41, 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×