Using more different and more familiar targets improves the detection of concealed information

When embedded among a number of plausible irrelevant options, the presentation of critical (e.g., crime-related or autobiographical) information is associated with a marked increase in response time (RT). This RT effect crucially depends on the inclusion of a target/non-target discrimination task with targets being a dedicated set of items that require a unique response (press YES; for all other items press NO). Targets may be essential because they share a feature - familiarity - with the critical items. Whereas irrelevant items have not been encountered before, critical items are known from the event or the facts of the investigation. Target items are usually learned before the test, and thereby made familiar to the participants. Hence, familiarity-based responding needs to be inhibited on the critical items and may therefore explain the RT increase on the critical items. This leads to the hypothesis that the more participants rely on familiarity, the more pronounced the RT increase on critical items may be. We explored two ways to increase familiarity-based responding: (1) Increasing the number of different target items, and (2) using familiar targets. In two web-based studies (n = 357 and n = 499), both the number of different targets and the use of familiar targets facilitated concealed information detection. The effect of the number of different targets was small yet consistent across both studies, the effect of target familiarity was large in both studies. Our results support the role of familiarity-based responding in the Concealed Information Test and point to ways on how to improve validity of the Concealed Information Test

Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohenâ\u80\u99s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.â\u80\u99s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04)

Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable