Case Study: The Guilty Knowledge Test

1257 Words3 Pages

The CIT was first introduced by David Lykken in 1959 and originally named the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). Opposite to the CQT, which asks direct questions (e.g., “Did you break into the jewelry store?”) and then compares the physiological reactions with a control question (e.g., “Have you ever taken something that did not belong to you?”), the CIT is an indirect questioning technique that determines if a suspect has knowledge of crime details. The primary aim of CIT is to detect knowledge about specific crime details rather than asking directly about participation in a crime (Lykken, 1959, 1974). Therefore, the CIT compares relevant items (also referred to as “key items”) such as features of the crime that only the perpetrator could know, …show more content…

A relevant item must always be something the perpetrator was likely to pay attention to and would be able to recall during the test. The control item would be something similar and a plausible alternative (e.g., “What was stolen at the jewelry store last night? Was it A) a ring?, B) a necklace?, C) a bracelet?, D) Gold?, E) a diamond, or F) a pair of earrings?”). Usually the test consists of four to six (or more) multiple-choice questions with one relevant detail each and four to five alternative answers. Questions are usually asked indirectly and answers are shown in multiple-choice format. Another way of presenting the answers is visually by using photos, scenes, or faces. It is important to mention that pictures should be kept as simple as possible to not distract from the relevant key item. This is because if there is too much detail in the picture the relevant key item may not be identified as …show more content…

The rates for false-negative classifications, on the other hand, have been much higher, especially in the field, with up to 58% of undetected guilty subjects (Elaad, 1990). However, the study referred to is critically discussed, as the CIT was carried out under subpar conditions and substantial differences between laboratory settings and real-life situations exist. The perception and memory of crime related details is different as optimal conditions that can be provided in laboratory settings are not given in the field. Various factors may interfere with the test, such as that some relevant information might be overlooked especially during strong excitement. In experimental setups information to which subjects are exposed to can be controlled. In order to address this issue, only items that seem plausible and recognized by most people (at least 80%), whether they possess crime knowledge or not, should be used (Lykken, 1981). Therefore, to receive lower rates on false-negative classifications, the CIT conditions in the field should duplicate the laboratory settings as closely as possible. Another point of criticism was the use of a single measure as an indicator of deception. Studies have shown that combined physiological measurements amount to superior results over individual measurements (Gamer, Verschuere, Crombez & Vossel,

Open Document