Effects of Incomplete Information on the Detection of Concealed Crime Details



The accuracy of the Concealed Information Test in correct classification of informed guilty and informed innocent participants was assessed when the explicitness of the obtained information varied. For these purposes, a mock crime procedure was employed and participants were randomly assigned to six conditions formed by combinations of two levels of the state of guilt (guilty and innocent) and three levels of information completeness (exact, indicative, non-specific). As expected, informed guilty participants were more accurately detected than informed innocents. It was further found that when the gathered information was less explicit, detection efficiency decreased. Theoretical and practical implications of the present results are discussed.


Guilty knowledge test Concealed information test Polygraph Psychophysiological detection of information Information processing 



This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) Grant no. 257/06.


  1. Bamber, D. (1975). The area under the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12, 378–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Shakhar, G. (1977). A further study of the dichotomization theory in detection of information. Psychophysiology, 14, 408–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnizer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the GKT in court. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 527–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2002). Effects of questions` repetition and variation on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test: A reexamination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 972–977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the guilty knowledge test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Shakhar, G., Gronau, N., & 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
  8. Bradley, M. M. (2009). Natural selective attention: Orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology, 46, 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley, M. T., MacLaren, V. V., & Carle, S. B. (1996). Deception and nondeception in guilty knowledge and guilty action polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley, M. T., & Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime-relevant information and the guilty knowledge test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley, M. T., & Warfield, J. F. (1984). Innocence, information, and the guilty knowledge test in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 21, 683–689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. E. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elaad, E. (2009). Effects of context and state of guilt on the detection of concealed crime information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71, 225–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elaad, E. (2010). Effects of perceived reliability and generalization of crime-related information on detection in the concealed information test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989). Effects of motivation and verbal response type on psychophysiological detection of information. Psychophysiology, 26, 442–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1997). Effects of item repetitions and variations on the efficiency of the guilty knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 34, 587–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2006). Finger pulse waveform length in the detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61, 226–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2009). Countering countermeasures in the concealed information test using covert respiration measures. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 197–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 757–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fukumoto, J. (1980). Psychophysiological detection of deception in Japan: The past and the present. Polygraph, 11, 234–238.Google Scholar
  22. Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Vossel, G. (2008). Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiology & Behavior, 95, 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giesen, M., & 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, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konieczny, J. (2007). An attempt to falsify the results of a polygraph test through the implementation of false memory: A case study. European Polygraph, 1, 117–121.Google Scholar
  25. Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. American Psychologist, 29, 225–239.Google Scholar
  27. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the blood. Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
  28. Nakayama, M. (2002). Practical use of the concealed information test for criminal investigation in Japan. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 49–86). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection, committee to review the scientific evidence on the polygraph. Washington, DC: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1989). Psychopathy, threat and polygraph test accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Stern, R. M., Breen, J. P., Watanabe, T., & Perry, B. S. (1981). Effects of feedback of physiological information on responses to innocent association and guilty knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 677–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Koster, E. H. W., & De Clercq, A. (2007). Antisociality, underarousal and the validity of the concealed information polygraph test. Biological Psychology, 74, 309–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vossel, G., Gamer, M., Godert, H. W., & Rill, H. G. (2003). The efficiency of detecting concealed information with the guilty knowledge test: A comparison of different physiological variables and non-physiological methods of credibility assessment using signal detection theory. Journal of Psychophysiologt, 17, 184. [Abstract].Google Scholar
  35. Yamamura, T., & Miyata, Y. (1990). Development of the polygraph technique in Japan for detection of deception. Forensic Science International, 44, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zvi L., Nachson, I., & Elaad, E. (2010). Effects of coping and cooperative behavior of guilty and informed innocent participants on the detection of concealed information. Paper presented at the 20th conference of the European association of psychology and law, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 15–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ariel University CenterArielIsrael

Personalised recommendations