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

E.H. Meijer, B. Verschuere, M. Gamer, H. Merckelbach, G. Ben-Shakhar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
111 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)593–604
Number of pages12
JournalPsychophysiology
Volume53
Issue number5
Early online date20 Jan 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2016

Keywords

  • Detection of deception
  • Neuroimaging
  • Validity
  • Concealed Information Test
  • Comparison Question Test
  • Differentiation of deception
  • CONCEALED INFORMATION TEST
  • FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE
  • GUILTY KNOWLEDGE TEST
  • FMRI-ACTIVATION PATTERNS
  • COMPARISON QUESTION TEST
  • COMPLEX TRIAL PROTOCOL
  • LIE-DETECTION
  • SKIN-CONDUCTANCE
  • ELECTRODERMAL DIFFERENTIATION
  • MEMORY DETECTION

Cite this

@article{ffc20ea82b434dfd85875ce5039c7214,
title = "Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty",
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.",
keywords = "Detection of deception, Neuroimaging, Validity, Concealed Information Test, Comparison Question Test, Differentiation of deception, CONCEALED INFORMATION TEST, FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE, GUILTY KNOWLEDGE TEST, FMRI-ACTIVATION PATTERNS, COMPARISON QUESTION TEST, COMPLEX TRIAL PROTOCOL, LIE-DETECTION, SKIN-CONDUCTANCE, ELECTRODERMAL DIFFERENTIATION, MEMORY DETECTION",
author = "E.H. Meijer and B. Verschuere and M. Gamer and H. Merckelbach and G. Ben-Shakhar",
note = "Open Access",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/psyp.12609",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "593–604",
journal = "Psychophysiology",
issn = "0048-5772",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "5",

}

Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty. / Meijer, E.H.; Verschuere, B.; Gamer, M.; Merckelbach, H.; Ben-Shakhar, G.

In: Psychophysiology, Vol. 53, No. 5, 05.2016, p. 593–604.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty

AU - Meijer, E.H.

AU - Verschuere, B.

AU - Gamer, M.

AU - Merckelbach, H.

AU - Ben-Shakhar, G.

N1 - Open Access

PY - 2016/5

Y1 - 2016/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Detection of deception

KW - Neuroimaging

KW - Validity

KW - Concealed Information Test

KW - Comparison Question Test

KW - Differentiation of deception

KW - CONCEALED INFORMATION TEST

KW - FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE

KW - GUILTY KNOWLEDGE TEST

KW - FMRI-ACTIVATION PATTERNS

KW - COMPARISON QUESTION TEST

KW - COMPLEX TRIAL PROTOCOL

KW - LIE-DETECTION

KW - SKIN-CONDUCTANCE

KW - ELECTRODERMAL DIFFERENTIATION

KW - MEMORY DETECTION

U2 - 10.1111/psyp.12609

DO - 10.1111/psyp.12609

M3 - Review article

VL - 53

SP - 593

EP - 604

JO - Psychophysiology

JF - Psychophysiology

SN - 0048-5772

IS - 5

ER -