Citation

Bradley MT, Malik FJ, Cullen MC. Percept. Mot. Skills 2011; 113(3): 840-858.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 5050, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 4L5 Canada. Bradley@UNBSJ.ca

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

22403929

Abstract

Accuracy rates with polygraphs using concealed information tests (CITs) depend on memory for crime details. Some participants read instructions on murdering a dummy victim that specified exact crime details asked on the subsequent CIT. Others read instructions not stating details, but still requiring interaction with the exact same details for the crime. For example, the murder weapon was under four heavy boxes. Instructions stated either "... remove the 4 boxes ..." or "... remove the boxes ..." Thus, each group removed four boxes, but only one group was primed with the number "4" beforehand. In addition, the victim unexpectedly shouted at some participants during the crime. An innocent group was not exposed to either manipulation. Memory, detection scores, and detection rates were lower for guilty participants not primed with details. Sound affected detection scores but not memory, and there was no interaction between the two factors. Information tests are limited by how crime information is received.

Language: en