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-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T02:26:22.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The Concealed Information Test in the courtroom: legal aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Mordechai Kremnitzer
Edited by
Bruno Verschuere ,
Gershon Ben-Shakhar  and
Ewout Meijer
Gershon Ben-Shakhar
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mordechai Kremnitzer
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
Get access

Summary

Overview: This chapter focuses on the admissibility of evidence based on CIT outcomes in criminal trials. We adopted the criteria formulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993) to evaluate admissibility. The literature on polygraph admissibility, which revolved only on the CQT, suggests that this technique does not meet the Daubert criteria. An examination of the CIT by these criteria reveals that although the current CIT research body suggests that it has a good potential for meeting the Daubert criteria, it is premature to recommend at this time that CIT outcomes will be used as admissible evidence in criminal trials. The main reason for this reservation is that the bulk of the CIT research is an experimental laboratory research and very little information exists today on CIT validity in the realistic forensic context. We recommend that future CIT research will examine the validity of this technique in realistic settings, or at least rely on laboratory experiments that better approximate realistic conditions.

Introduction

The question of whether polygraph tests' results should be used as admissible evidence in criminal courts is almost as ancient as polygraph testing itself. The first attempt to introduce polygraph test results into the US courtroom was made as early as 1923 (Frye v. United States). In the Frye case, the court rejected the polygraph testimony, but more importantly the ruling in this case has become a precedent for the admissibility of all scientific evidence in US courts for many years to come.

Type
Chapter
Information
Memory Detection
Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test
 , pp. 276 - 290
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. (1977). A further study of dichotomization theory in detection of information. Psychophysiology, 14, 408–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G. (1980). Habituation of the orienting response to complex sequences of stimuli. Psychophysiology, 17, 524–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 103–126). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of deception with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and Applications in the Detection of Deception: A Psychophysiological and International Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Gati, I. (1987). Common and distinctive features of verbal and pictorial stimuli as determinants of psychophysiological responsivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., and Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: reconsidering the use of the GKT in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gronau, N., and Elaad, E. (1999). Leakage of relevant information to innocent examinees in the GKT: an attempt to reduce false-positive outcomes by introducing target stimuli. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, A. (1979). The orienting response as a novelty and significance detector: reply to O'Gorman. Psychophysiology, 16, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., and Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime-relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T., and Warfield, J. F. (1984). Innocence, information, and the guilty knowledge test in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, M. T., MacLaren, V. V., and Carle, S. B. (1997). Deception and nondeception in guilty knowledge and guilty actions polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Woodward (D. Boston, 1998), SJC-07635.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. Supp. 2786 (1993).
Daniels, C. W. (2002). Legal aspects of polygraph admissibility in the United States. In Kleiner, M. (ed.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (pp. 327–338). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989). Effects of motivation and verbal response type on psychophysiological detection of information. Psychophysiology, 26, 442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., and Jungman., N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., and Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection?Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 1013, 1014 (App. D.C. 1923).
Fukumoto, J. (1980). A case in which the polygraph was the sole evidence for conviction. Polygraph, 9, 42–44.Google Scholar
Furedy, J. J. (1993). The “control” question “test” (CQT) polygrapher's dilema: logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 15, 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallai, D. (1999). Polygraph evidence in federal courts: should it be admissible?American Criminal Law Review, 36, 87–116.Google Scholar
Gamer, M., Kosiol, D., and Vossel, G. (2010). Strength of memory encoding affects physiological responses in the Guilty Action Test. Biological Psychology, 83, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gati, I., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1990). Novelty and significance in orientation and habituation: a feature-matching approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giesen, M. and Rollison, M. A. (1980). Guilty knowledge versus innocent associations: effects of trait anxiety and stimulus context on skin conductance. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnon, E. (1982). Evidence obtained by polygraph: an Israeli perspective. The Criminal Law Review, 329–348.Google Scholar
Hira, S., Sasaki, M., Matsuda, T., Furumitsu, I., and Furedy, J. J. (2001). Pz-recorded P300 is highly accurate and sensitive to a memorial manipulation in an objective laboratory guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 38, S50.Google Scholar
Hira, S., Sasaki, M., Matsuda, T., Furumitsu, I., and Furedy, J. J. (2002). A year after the commission of a mock crime, the P300 amplitudes, but not reaction time, are sensitive guilty knowledge test indicators. Psychophysiology, 39, S42.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., and Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical counter-measures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1987). Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1, 241–247.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: the case for polygraph tests. In Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., and Sanders, J. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Volume 2 (pp. 446–483). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K, Winbush, M., and Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., and Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false confessions: a conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacono, W. G. (1991). Can we determine the accuracy of polygraph tests? In Jennings, J. R., Ackles, P. K., and Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, 4 (pp. 1–101). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., and Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacono, W. G., and Lykken, D. T. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: the case against polygraph tests. In Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., and Sanders, J. (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Volume 2 (pp. 483–538). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Iacono, W. G., and Patrick, C. J. (1988). Assessing deception: polygraph tecchniques. In Rogers, R. (ed.), Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception (pp. 205–233). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., and Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: compliance, internalization and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubis, J. F. (1962). Studies in Lie Detection: Computer Feasibility Considerations. Technical Report #62–205, prepared for the Air Force Systems Command. Contract No. AF 30 (602) -2270, project No. 5534, Fordham University.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. American Psychologist, 29, 725–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLaren, V. V. (2001). A quantitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 674–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maltzman, I. (1979). Orienting reflexes and significance: a reply to O'Gorman. Psychophysiology, 16, 274–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marston, W. M. (1917). Systolic blood pressure symptoms of deception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2, 117–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Podlesny, J. A. (1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 57–61.Google Scholar
,Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993; Cm 2263; Chair: Lord Runciman).
Saxe, L. (1991). Lying: thoughts of an applied social psychologist. American Psychologist, 46, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxe, L., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: the application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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). Effects of feedback of physiological information on responses to innocent associations and guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States v. Cordoba, 158 (D. California, 1998), aff'd, SA CR 95–39-GLT[SF].
United States v. Scheffer, 118 S. Ct. Supp. 1261 (D. Washington, 1998), aff'd, USCA Dkt. No. 95–0521/AF (US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces).
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
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit. Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd edn. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Yamamura, T., and Miyata, Y. (1990). Development of the polygraph technique in Japan for detection of deception. Forensic Science International, 44, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×