Self-initiated versus instructed cheating in the physiological Concealed Information Test

Linda Marjoleine Geven; Nathalie Klein Selle; Gershon Ben-Shakhar; Merel Kindt; Bruno Verschuere

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.09.005

Self-initiated versus instructed cheating in the physiological Concealed Information Test

Biol Psychol. 2018 Oct:138:146-155. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.09.005. Epub 2018 Sep 17.

Authors

Linda Marjoleine Geven¹, Nathalie Klein Selle², Gershon Ben-Shakhar², Merel Kindt³, Bruno Verschuere³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018WS Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel. Electronic address: L.M.Geven@uva.nl.
² Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel.
³ Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1018WS Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

PMID: 30236614
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.09.005

Abstract

The validity of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) to detect recognition of critical details has been demonstrated in hundreds of laboratory studies. These studies, however, lack the factor of deliberate intent to deceive. This disparity between research and practice may affect the generalizability of laboratory based CIT findings. In the current study, 65 out of 174 participants cheated on their own initiative in a trivia quiz. These self-initiated cheaters were compared to 68 participants who were explicitly requested to cheat. Skin conductance, heart rate, and respiration were found to detect concealed information related to cheating. No significant differences emerged between self-initiated and instructed cheaters, supported by Bayesian statistics showing substantial evidence for the null hypothesis. The data demonstrate that the validity of the CIT is not restricted to instructed deception. This finding is encouraging from an ecological validity perspective and may pave the way for further field implementation of memory detection.

Keywords: Cheating; Concealed Information Test (CIT); Deception; Dishonesty; External validity; Memory detection.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Deception*
Female
Galvanic Skin Response / physiology*
Heart Rate / physiology*
Humans
Intention*
Lie Detection*
Male
Neuropsychological Tests / standards*
Recognition, Psychology / physiology*
Reproducibility of Results
Respiration*