Literature DB >> 1946882

The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge.

J J Furedy1, G Ben-Shakhar.   

Abstract

The present study focused on electrodermal differentiation between relevant and neutral items in the Guilty Knowledge paradigm. Three factors were varied in a between-subjects design. The role of deception was examined by varying the type of verbal answer to the questions ("yes," "no," and remaining silent). The intention to deceive factor was examined by contrasting subjects told to delay their answer ("yes" or "no") with those told to produce their answer immediately. Finally, motivation to avoid detection was manipulated by having half the subjects monetarily rewarded for an important (ego relevant) detection task (high motivation), whereas the remaining subjects were neither rewarded nor told that the task was important. The results indicated that a deceptive answer ("no") to the relevant question was associated with an increased differential skin conductance responsivity, but better than chance detection rates were obtained with truthful ("yes") and silent conditions. Equal and significant detection rates were observed when the responses were computed immediately following question presentation, whether the subjects had answered immediately or had delayed their answers. In contrast, differential electrodermal responsivity to the delayed answers was markedly attenuated. The motivation factor had no main or interactive effects on differential responsivity. The present results, together with those obtained in previous studies, suggest that whereas deception is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for psychophysiological detection, it may facilitate detection. Possible mechanisms through which such a facilitation could occur were considered.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1946882     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb00407.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  7 in total

1.  The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses.

Authors:  Shawn E Christ; David C Van Essen; Jason M Watson; Lindsay E Brubaker; Kathleen B McDermott
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2008-11-02       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Manipulating item proportion and deception reveals crucial dissociation between behavioral, autonomic, and neural indices of concealed information.

Authors:  Kristina Suchotzki; Bruno Verschuere; Judith Peth; Geert Crombez; Matthias Gamer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Face and voice as social stimuli enhance differential physiological responding in a concealed information test.

Authors:  Wolfgang Ambach; Birthe Assmann; Bennet Krieg; Dieter Vaitl
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-11-19

4.  The "good cop, bad cop" effect in the RT-based concealed information test: exploring the effect of emotional expressions displayed by a virtual investigator.

Authors:  Mihai Varga; George Visu-Petra; Mircea Miclea; Laura Visu-Petra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Deceptive Intentions: Can Cues to Deception Be Measured before a Lie Is Even Stated?

Authors:  Sabine Ströfer; Matthijs L Noordzij; Elze G Ufkes; Ellen Giebels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Evaluative Observation in a Concealed Information Test.

Authors:  Wolfgang Ambach; Birthe Assmann; Blanda Wielandt; Dieter Vaitl
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.157

7.  Catching a Deceiver in the Act: Processes Underlying Deception in an Interactive Interview Setting.

Authors:  Sabine Ströfer; Elze G Ufkes; Matthijs L Noordzij; Ellen Giebels
Journal:  Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback       Date:  2016-09
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.