The term dark triad refers to the constellation of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Over the past few years, the concept has gained momentum, with many researchers assuming that the dark triad is a prominent antecedent of transgressive and norm-violating behavior. Our purpose in this meta-analytic review was to evaluate (a) interrelations among narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; (b) gender differences in these traits; (c) how these traits are linked to normal personality factors; and (d) the psychosocial correlates of the dark triad. Our findings show that dark triad traits are substantially intercorrelated, somewhat more prevalent among men than women, predominantly related to the Big Five personality factor of agreeableness and the HEXACO factor of honesty-humility, and generally associated with various types of negative psychosocial outcomes. We question whether dark triad traits are sufficiently distinct and argue that the way they are currently measured is too simple to capture the malevolent sides of personality. Because most research in this domain is cross-sectional and based on self-reports, we recommend using a cross-informant approach and prospective, longitudinal research designs for studying the predictive value of dark triad features.

The Concealed Information Test (CIT) uses psychophysiological measures to determine the presence or absence of crime-related information in a suspect's memory. We conducted a meta-analysis on the validity of the CIT based on four physiological measures-skin conductance response (SCR), respiration line length (RLL), changes in heart rate (HR), and enhanced amplitudes of the P300 component of the event-related potential (P300). This meta-analysis relied on laboratory studies that used either the mock-crime or the personal-item paradigm. Results showed a mean effect size (d*) of 1.55 for SCR, 1.11 for RLL, 0.89 for HR, and 1.89 for P300. However, P300 outperformed SCR only in the personal-item paradigm, but not in the mock-crime paradigm. Motivation level, number of questions, publication year, and the inclusion of innocent participants emerged as significant moderators for the SCR, while only the type of paradigm used moderated the P300 effect.

An advantage of the concealed information polygraph test (CIT) is that its false positive rate is determined on statistical grounds, and can be set a priori at arbitrary low levels (i.e., few innocents declared guilty). This criterion, however, inevitably leads to a loss of sensitivity (i.e., more guilty suspects declared innocent). We explored whether the sensitivity of a CIT procedure could be increased by adding an independent measure that is based on an entirely different psychological mechanism. In two experiments, we explored whether the accuracy of a CIT procedure could be increased by adding Symptom Validity Testing (SVT), a relatively simple, forced-choice, self-report procedure that has previously been used to detect malingering in various contexts. Results of a feigned amnesia experiment but not from a mock crime experiment showed that a combination measure of both tests yielded better detection than either test alone.

The Concealed Information Test (CIT) provides a valid tool for psychophysiological detection of concealed knowledge. However, its precise theoretical underpinnings remain a matter of debate. The differential physiological responses elicited by concealed, relevant items, relative to control items, were traditionally explained as reflecting an Orienting Response (OR). According to an alternative account, these responses reflect attempts to inhibit arousal. The present study examined whether and to what extent CIT detection efficiency is affected by instructions aimed at manipulating Arousal Inhibition (AI). One-hundred and forty-seven undergraduate students completed a CIT, while electrodermal, cardiac and respiratory measures were recorded. Half of the participants were requested to imagine that they are suspected of committing a crime and were motivated to avoid detection (presumably eliciting both OR and AI), while the other half were requested to imagine that they are witnesses of a crime and were motivated to be detected (presumably eliciting OR only). All participants were further requested to remain silent throughout the test. In both conditions, concealed items led to a similar increase in skin conductance as compared to the control items. However, the typically observed heart rate deceleration and respiratory suppression were found in suspects, but not in witnesses. These data imply that different mechanisms drive the responding of different psychophysiological measures used in the CIT, with skin conductance reflecting OR, and heart rate and respiration primarily reflecting AI.

No 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.

No abstract

The cognitive view on deception proposes that lying comes with a cognitive cost. This view is supported by the finding that lying typically takes longer than truth telling. Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide a means to unravel the cognitive processes underlying this cost.Using a mock-crime design, the current study (n = 20) investigated the effects of deception on the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), the Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP), the Correct Response Negativity (CRN), and the stimulus-locked N200 and P300 components. In line with previous research, lying resulted in more errors, longer reaction times (RTs) and longer RT standard deviations compared to truthful responses. A marginally significant effect suggested a stronger CNV for the anticipation of lying compared to the anticipation of truth telling. There were no significant deception effects on the stimulus-and the response-locked LRPs. Unexpectedly, we found a significantly larger CRN for truth telling compared to lying.Additional analyses revealed an enhanced N200 and a decreased P300 for lying compared to truth telling. Our results support the cognitive load hypothesis for lying, yet are mixed regarding the response conflict hypothesis. Results are discussed with regard to the specific characteristics of our design and their theoretical and applied implications.