Literature DB >> 26787599

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty.

Ewout H Meijer1, Bruno Verschuere1,2, Matthias Gamer3, Harald Merckelbach1, Gershon Ben-Shakhar4.   

Abstract

The detection of deception has attracted increased attention among psychological researchers, legal scholars, and ethicists during the last decade. Much of this has been driven by the possibility of using neuroimaging techniques for lie detection. Yet, neuroimaging studies addressing deception detection are clouded by lack of conceptual clarity and a host of methodological problems that are not unique to neuroimaging. We review the various research paradigms and the dependent measures that have been adopted to study deception and its detection. In doing so, we differentiate between basic research designed to shed light on the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying deceptive behavior and applied research aimed at detecting lies. We also stress the distinction between paradigms attempting to detect deception directly and those attempting to establish involvement by detecting crime-related knowledge, and discuss the methodological difficulties and threats to validity associated with each paradigm. Our conclusion is that the main challenge of future research is to find paradigms that can isolate cognitive factors associated with deception, rather than the discovery of a unique (brain) correlate of lying. We argue that the Comparison Question Test currently applied in many countries has weak scientific validity, which cannot be remedied by using neuroimaging measures. Other paradigms are promising, but the absence of data from ecologically valid studies poses a challenge for legal admissibility of their outcomes.
© 2016 The Authors. Psychophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparison Question Test; Concealed Information Test; Detection of deception; Differentiation of deception; Neuroimaging; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26787599     DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12609

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


  13 in total

1.  Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time-based concealed information test: the effect of observation time.

Authors:  Melanie Sauerland; Dave Koller; Astrid Bastiaens; Bruno Verschuere
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-02-08

2.  A practical approach to sexual abuse allegations: Netherlands Expert Committee for Equivocal Sexual Abuse Allegations.

Authors:  Nicole Nierop; Paul van den Eshof; Cleo Brandt
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2021-03-05

3.  Thermal signatures of voluntary deception in ecological conditions.

Authors:  Maria Serena Panasiti; Daniela Cardone; Enea F Pavone; Alessandra Mancini; Arcangelo Merla; Salvatore M Aglioti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Strategic Interviewing to Detect Deception: Cues to Deception across Repeated Interviews.

Authors:  Jaume Masip; Iris Blandón-Gitlin; Carmen Martínez; Carmen Herrero; Izaskun Ibabe
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-01

5.  Neural mechanisms of deception in a social context: an fMRI replication study.

Authors:  Maya Zheltyakova; Maxim Kireev; Alexander Korotkov; Svyatoslav Medvedev
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Using Polygraph to Detect Passengers Carrying Illegal Items.

Authors:  Runxin Yu; Si Jia Wu; Audrey Huang; Nathan Gold; Huaxiong Huang; Genyue Fu; Kang Lee
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-25

7.  Why Behavioral Indicators May Fail to Reveal Mental States: Individual Differences in Arousal-Movement Pattern Relationships.

Authors:  Aaro Toomela; Sven Nõmm; Tiit Kõnnussaar; Valdar Tammik
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-14

8.  Validity of the Reaction Time Concealed Information Test in a Prison Sample.

Authors:  Kristina Suchotzki; Aileen Kakavand; Matthias Gamer
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.157

9.  Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) Cannot Distinguish Between Truthful and Fabricated Accounts of a Negative Event.

Authors:  Glynis Bogaard; Ewout H Meijer; Aldert Vrij; Harald Merckelbach
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-02-25

10.  Separating the Wheat From the Chaff: Guidance From New Technologies for Detecting Deception in the Courtroom.

Authors:  Judee K Burgoon
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 4.157

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.