This research was supported by the Program for Canadian Studies at the Hebrew University. We wish to thank Dikla Feinstein who ran the experiments and collected the data of this study, Alex Vincent for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and Sonny Kugelmass, whose comments helped us to put this work into perspective.
The Roles of Deception, Intention to Deceive, and Motivation to Avoid Detection in the Psychophysiological Detection of Guilty Knowledge
Article first published online: 30 JAN 2007
Volume 28, Issue 2, pages 163–171, March 1991
How to Cite
Furedy, J. J. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991), The Roles of Deception, Intention to Deceive, and Motivation to Avoid Detection in the Psychophysiological Detection of Guilty Knowledge. Psychophysiology, 28: 163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb00407.x
- Issue published online: 30 JAN 2007
- Article first published online: 30 JAN 2007
- (Manuscript received February 13, 1990; accepted for publication May 25, 1990)
- Detection of deception;
- Electrodermal differentiation;
- Guilty knowledge paradigm;
- Intention to deceive;
- Motivation to avoid detection
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.