Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Experimental Paradigms on Reaction Time-based Concealed Information Test

반응시간기반 숨긴정보검사에 대한 실험 패러다임의 효과

  • Received : 2021.01.13
  • Accepted : 2021.03.08
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Most researchers have experimentally evaluated the detection efficiency of reaction time-based concealed information tests (RT CIT). In experimental studies, two experimental paradigms have been mainly used to create a lying situation, mock-crime paradigm and personal-item paradigm. This study is aimed at testing the detection efficiency of RT CIT for the one that could be estimated as the same as the other, regardless of the experimental paradigms. In study 1, it was tested whether the effect size of RT CIT was different in the two experimental paradigms through meta-analysis. As a result of the meta-analysis of 39 studies, the effect size (Hedges'g = 1.330) of the mock-crime paradigm was slightly larger than that (Hedges'g = 1.145) of the personal-item paradigm, but no statistically significant difference was found. Study 2 was an experimental study using both the mock-crime and personal-item paradigms, it was conducted to determine whether the detection efficiency of RT CIT differs in the two experimental paradigms. As a result of ANOVA, it was found that the RT differences between the probe and irrelevant stimuli were not significant in the two experimental paradigms. In the experimental study, the effect size (Cohen's d) of the mock-crime and personal-item paradigms were 1.638 and 1.535, respectively. In the discussion section, the reason of the detection efficiency of RT CIT not affected by the experimental paradigms was discussed.

대부분의 연구자들은 반응시간기반 숨긴정보검사(RT CIT)의 탐지 효율성을 평가하기 위하여 실험연구를 수행한다. 실험연구에서 거짓말하는 상황을 만들기 위하여 주로 두 가지 실험 패러다임이 사용된다. 한 가지는 모의 범죄 패러다임이며, 다른 한 가지는 개인적 항목 패러다임이다. 본 연구의 목적은 실험 패러다임에 관계없이 RT CIT의 탐지 효율성이 동일하게 추정되는지 검증하는 것이다. 연구 1에서는 선행 연구들에 대한 메타분석을 통하여 두 가지 실험 패러다임 간에 RT CIT의 효과크기가 다른지 검증하였다. 39개 연구에 대한 메타분석 결과, 모의 범죄 패러다임의 효과크기(Hedges의 g=1.330)가 개인적 항목 패러다임의 효과크기(g=1.145) 보다 약간 컸지만, 통계적으로 유의한 차이는 아니었다. 연구 2에서는 모의 범죄 패러다임 조건과 개인적 항목 패러다임 조건을 포함하는 실험연구를 수행하여, 실험 패러다임에 따라 RT CIT의 탐지 효율성이 다른지 검증하였다. 변량분석 결과, 관련자극과 무관련자극간의 반응시간 차이가 실험 패러다임에 따라 통계적으로 유의하게 다르지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 실험연구에서 모의 범죄 패러다임의 효과크기(Cohen의 d)는 1.638이었으며, 개인적 항목 패러다임의 효과크기는 1.535였다. RT CIT의 탐지 효율성이 실험 패러다임에 영향을 받지 않는 이유에 대하여 논의하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2018년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2018S1A5B5A07073009).

References

  1. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2002). The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: Future prospects and obstacles. Handbook of polygraph testing, 87-102.
  2. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 131-151. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.131
  3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to Meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Carmel, D., Dayan, E., Naveh, A., Raveh, O., & BenShakhar, G. (2003). Estimating the validity of the guilty knowledge test from simulated experiments: the external validity of mock crime studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(4), 261-269. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898x.9.4.261
  5. Cohen, J. E. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
  7. Eom, J. S., Sohn, S., Park, K., Eum, Y. J., & Sohn, J. H. (2016). Effects of varying numbers of probes on RT-based CIT accuracy. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(2), 229-238. DOI: 10.14257/ijmue.2016.11.2.23
  8. Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531-547. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01990.x
  9. Hu, X., Evans, A., Wu, H., Lee, K., & Fu, G. (2013). An interfering dot-probe task facilitates the detection of mock crime memory in a reaction time (RT)-based concealed information test. Acta Pychologica, 142(2), 278-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.12.006
  10. Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Memory detection 2.0: The first web-based memory detection test. PloS One, 10(4), e0118715. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118715
  11. Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2016). The role of motivation to avoid detection in reaction time-based concealed information detection. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(1), 43-51. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.11.004
  12. Kleiner, M. E. (2002). Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press.
  13. Lukacs, G., & Ansorge, U. (2019). Information leakage in the response time-based concealed information test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1178-1196. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3565
  14. Lukacs, G., Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2017). Familiarity-related fillers improve the validity of reaction time-based memory detection. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 295-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.013
  15. Lukacs, G., Kleinberg, B., Kunzi, M., Ansorge, U., Vazire, S., & Freitas, A. (2020). Response time concealed information test on smartphones. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1). DOI: 10.1525/collabra.255
  16. Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 385-388. DOI: 10.1037/h0046060
  17. Meijer, E. H., Selle, N. K., Elber, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2014). Memory detection with the concealed information test: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data. Psychophysiology, 51(9), 879-904. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12239
  18. Noordraven, E., & Verschuere, B. (2013). Predicting the sensitivity of the reaction time-based concealed information test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 328-335. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2910
  19. Olson, J., Rosenfeld, J. P., Kim, T., & Perrault, E. (2018). The effect of countermeasures against the reaction time based concealed information test on the P300 index of knowledge recognition: A combined RT and P300-based test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 134, 9-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.10.003
  20. Rosenfeld, J. P., Cantwell, B., Nasman, V. T., Wojdac, V., Ivanov, S., & Mazzeri, L. (1988). A modified, event-related potential-based guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Neuroscience, 42(1-2), 157-161. DOI: 10.3109/00207458808985770
  21. Seymour, T. L., & Fraynt, B. R. (2009). Time and encoding effects in the concealed knowledge test. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34(3), 177-187. DOI: 10.1007/s10484-009-9092-3
  22. Seymour, T. L., & Kerlin, J. R. (2008). Successful detection of verbal and visual concealed knowledge using an RT-based paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 475-490. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/acp.1375
  23. Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge". Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 30-37. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30
  24. Suchotzki, K., De Houwer, J., Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Using more different and more familiar targets improves the detection of concealed information. Acta Psychologica, 185, 65-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.010
  25. Suchotzki, K., Kakavand, A., & Gamer, M. (2019). Validity of the reaction time concealed information test in a prison sample. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 745. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00745
  26. Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Van Bockstaele, B., BenShakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000087
  27. Varga, M., Visu-Petra, G., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2015). The "good cop, bad cop" effect in the RT-based concealed information test: Exploring the effect of emotional expressions displayed by a virtual investigator. PloS One, 10(2), e0116087. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116087
  28. Verschuere, B., & Kleinberg, B. (2016). ID-check: Online concealed information test reveals true identity. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61, S237-S240. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12960
  29. Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Degrootte, T., & Rosseel, Y. (2010). Detecting concealed information with reaction times: Validity and comparison with the polygraph. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 991-1002. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1601
  30. Verschuere, B., Kleinberg, B., & Theocharidou, K. (2015). RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 59-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.01.001
  31. Visu-Petra, G., Jurje, O., Opre, A., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2014). Which came first, the truth or the lie? effects of order and habituation in the reaction time-based concealed information test. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 283-297.
  32. Visu-Petra, G., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2012). Reaction time-based detection of concealed information in relation to individual differences in executive functioning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 342-351. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1827
  33. Visu-Petra, G., Miclea, M., Bus, I., & Visu-Petra, L. (2014). Detecting concealed information: The role of individual differences in executive functions and social desirability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(1), 20-36. DOI: 10.1080/1068316x.2012.736509
  34. Visu-Petra, G., Varga, M., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2013). When interference helps: Increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information test. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 146. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146