Can you keep a secret? Introducing the RT-based Concealed Information Test to children

The present study validates a novel version of the Reaction time-based Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) adapted for young children (7–10 years). Their ability to deny the possession of relevant information was related to individual differences in intelligence, processing speed, executive functioning and affective problems. The comparison between the knowledgeable group of children (N = 84) who took part in a mock surprise scenario and the unknowledgeable group (N = 78) indicated that by early school-age the RT-CIT can be considered a relatively reliable diagnostic tool for detecting concealed information. We found evidence indicating that executive functions are predictors of children's proficiency in concealing information; however, the specific interrelations were complex (children with lower inhibition and spatial working memory, but with better shifting performance were easier to detect as possessing concealed information). Finally, we found limited evidence for a substantial association between parent-reported emotional problems and children's proficiency in concealing information. This investigation has practical implications for the development of rigorous protocols to detect children's concealed knowledge within legal environments.     

Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection: a reply to Ten Brinke et al. (2015)

When passively attending to suspects, observers are poor at distinguishing lies from truths. Deception research has therefore shifted to examining interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing deception cues. Based upon a literature review and three empirical studies, ten Brinke, L., Khambatta, P., and Carney, D. R. [2015. Physically scarce (vs. enriched) environments decrease the ability to successfully tell lies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 982–992. doi:10.1037/xge0000103] recommend increasing pressure on interviewees as it would increase lie detection accuracy. In this comment, we argue that these authors (1) misinterpret the literature when concluding that lie detection benefits from increasing pressure on interviewees, and (2) their data do not show that lie detection is more accurate when pressure is increased. In absence of such data, we recommend that increasing pressure on interviewees should be avoided: it hampers the elicitation of valuable information and can lead to false confessions.