초록

수사 장면에서 피해자 및 목격자들은 사건 목격 이후 다양한 오정보에 노출될 뿐만 아니라 장기간의 시간 지연 후 진술할 가능성이 높다. 본 연구는 정확 회상을 저해할 수 있는 시간 지연 및 오정보의 영향을 감소시키고 정확 회상 보고량을 증진시키는 방안을 고안하기 위해 진행되었다. 따라서 목격자 진술을 빠르고 정확하게 확보하는데 도움이 된다고 알려진 자기 기입식 면담(Self-Administered Interview, SAI)을 수행한 집단이 SAI를 수행하지 않은 통제 집단보다 정보를 더 많이 보고하는지, 또 SAI를 통해 오정보 및 시간 지연의 영향을 받지 않고 정확 정보가 유지되는지 알아보고자 하였다. 88명의 20대 성인을 대상으로 범죄를 재연한 영상을 보여준 후 SAI나 통제 과제(게임)를 수행하도록 하였으며, 오정보를 목격 당일(1회기), 혹은 4주 후(2회기)에 제시하여 4주 후 회상량에 영향을 주는지 검증했다. 그 결과 SAI를 실시한 집단이 통제 집단보다 4주의 지연 이후 실시된 2회기의 검사에서 정확 정보를 더 많이 보고하였으며, 부정확 정보 및 작화 정보 보고량에는 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 오정보의 제시 시점은 회상량에 영향을 주지 않았다. 이러한 결과는 사건을 목격한 직후 SAI를 실시하는 것이 장기간의 시간 지연에서 기억 정보를 보호할 수 있음을 시사한다. 마지막으로 연구의 의의 및 제한점, 그리고 후속 연구를 위한 제언을 논의하였다.

Abstract

Witnesses will be exposed to a variety of misinformation after the witnessing of the event and state at the scene of the investigation after the delay period. This study was conducted to promote correct recall reporting without being affected by factors that against correct recall. Self-Administered Interview(SAI) is known to obtain eyewitness accounts quickly and accurately. Therefore, we performed a SAI to see if it reported more information than the control group that did not perform the SAI. Also, it also performed that correct information was maintained without being affected by misinformation and delay. Eighty-eight participants were asked to perform SAI or game after showing a video of mock crime. Misinformation was presented in the first or second session to see if it affected recall. An analysis of responses from the final test conducted in the second session by participants showed that groups that conducted SAI after a four-week delay reported more correct information than control groups, while there was no difference between incorrect- and confabulation information. In particular, the timing of presenting misinformation did not affect the amount of recall. This suggests that conducting the SAI immediately after witnessing the event protects correct information even after four weeks. Finally, the significance and limitations of this study, and subsequent studies were discussed.

초록

P300 숨긴정보검사에서는 조사대상자가 거짓을 말하고 있는지 판단하기 위하여 관련자극의 P300 진폭이 무관련자극의 P300 진폭보다 통계적으로 유의하게 더 큰지를 평가한다. 구체적인 통계적 방법으로 독립표본 t 검증 또는 부트스트랩 방법을 사용할 수 있다. Rosenfeld와 Soskins, Bosh, Ryan(2004)은 “개인 내에서 관련자극과 무관련자극의 P300 평균을 비교하는데 사용하기에는 t 검증이 너무 둔감하다.”면서 부트스트랩 방법을 사용하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 P300 숨긴정보검사에서 t 검증의 검증력이 부트스트랩 방법보다 더 낮은지 평가하는 것이다. 이를 위하여 39명의 실험참가자로부터 측정한 뇌파자료를 이용하여 Monte Carlo 연구를 수행하였다. 연구결과, t 검증과 백분위를 이용한 부트스트랩 방법의 1 종 오류율은 서로 비슷하였으며, 백분위를 이용한 부트스트랩 방법의 검증력이 t 검증의 검증력보다 약간 더 높았다. 두 검증 방법의 1 종 오류율은 모두 유의수준보다 낮은 값을 보였으며, 검증력은 이론적인 t 검증의 검증력보다 약간 낮은 값을 보였다. 반면에 표준오차를 이용한 부트스트랩 방법의 1 종 오류율과 검증력은 이론적인 t 검증의 1 종 오류율 및 검증력과 비슷한 값을 보였으며, t 검증의 검증력보다 실험조건에 따라 .012 ~ .081 더 높았다.

Abstract

In P300-based concealed information test (P300 CIT), it evaluates whether the P300 amplitude for the probe is significantly greater than that of the irrelevant to determine if the suspect is telling a lie. An independent sample t-test or a bootstrap method can be used as a statistical test to make that decision. Rosenfeld et al. (2004) used the bootstrap method, claiming that “t tests on single sweeps are too insensitive to use to compare mean probe and irrelevant P300s within individuals” and their method has been accepted to date. The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the power of t-test is lower than that of the bootstrap method in the P300 CIT. The Monte Carlo study was conducted by using EEG collected from 39 participants. The results showed that the type I error rates of the t-test and the percentile bootstrap method were similar and the power of the percentile bootstrap method was slightly higher than that of the t-test. The type I error rates of the t-test and the percentile bootstrap method were slightly lower than the significance level and the powers of the two tests were also slightly lower than that of the theoretical t-test. On the other hand, the type I error rate and power of the standard error Bootstrap method were the same as those of the theoretical t-test and its power was .012 ~ .081 higher than that of t-test depending on experimental conditions.

초록

Abstract

Lee, Khogali, Despodova, and Penrod (2019) demonstrated that American participants whose races are different from a defendant and a victim rendered more punitive judgments against the defendant in a same-race crime (e.g., White observer-Black defendant-Black victim) compared to a cross-race crime (e.g., White observer-Black defendant-Hispanic victim). The aim of the current study was to test the replicability of their findings in a different country-South Korea. Study 1a failed to replicate the race-combination effect in South Korea with three new moderators-case strength, defendant’s use of violence, and race salience. Study 1b was conducted with the same design of Study 1a in the United States to examine whether the failure of the replication in Study 1a was due to cultural differences between South Korea and the United States. However, Study 1b also failed to replicate the race-combination effect. Study 2 conducted a meta-analytic review of the data from Lee et al.’s (2019) study, along with the data from Study 1a and 1b and revealed that the race-salience manipulation in Study 1a and 1b might have caused the null results. We conclude that when people’ races are different from both a defendant and a victim, they are likely to render more punitive judgments against the defendant in a same-race crime than a cross-race crime. However, the race-combination effect is only sustained when race-relevant issues are not salient in the crime.

초록

판단과 의사결정 연구에서 사람들이 판단 대상과 무관한 정보에 의해 영향을 받아, 예측 가능한 방향으로 편향이 일어날 수 있다. 이런 편향은 법적 판단에서도 나타난다는 연구도 많다. 그 중 하나는 피고인의 성격증거에 의해 유도된 편향이다. 본 연구에서는 성격증거로 편향을 유도한 다음, 판단자의 사고를 촉진하는 활동을 통해 편향을 감소시키는 방안을 모색하였다. 실험 1에서는 대학생 121명을 대상으로 하여 토론, 반사실적 사고와 토론, 그리고 반사실적 사고와 동료평가를 한 경우로 나누어 어떤 방법이 피고인의 성격증거로 유도된 편향을 줄이는데 효과가 있는지를 알아보았다. 연구결과 탈편향 활동을 한 집단은 통제 집단보다 유의미하게 편향이 줄어들었지만, 세 가지 다른 탈편향 활동을 한 집단들 간에는 감소량에서 차이가 없었다. 동일한 설계와 절차로 일반인 125명을 대상으로 실시한 실험 2에서는, 대학생 집단과는 달리, 반사실적사고와 토론을 병행한 집단에서만 유의미하게 편향이 줄어들었다. 종합 논의에서는 대학생과 일반인 간에 왜 이런 차이가 나타났는지에 대한 탐색과 연구의 한계점, 그리고 향후 연구방향에 대해 다루었다. 본 연구는 탈편향 전략이 피고인의 성격증거로 인해 발생할 수 있는 오판을 축소시킬 수 있음을 확인하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Abstract

Judgment and decision-making studies have shown that people are easily influenced and biased by information irrelevant to the object of judgment. There is a great deal of research that indicates that bias exists in the legal judgment scene. One of them is a bias induced by defendants’ character evidence. This study examined whether cognitive activities such as discussion, counterfactual thinking, and peer assessment could reduce the bias induced by the character evidece. In Experiment 1, 121 college students were asked to give the percentage they believed the defendant to be guilty. There was no cognitive activity for the control group. There were three different cognitive activities for the experimental group: discussion, counterfactual thinking and discussion, and counterfactual thinking and peer assessment. Results showed reduction in bias for all the experimental groups, and there was no difference between them. In Experiment 2, there were 125 participants from general population for the same procedure as in Experiment 1. Results showed reduction in bias only for the counterfactual thinking and discussion group. In general discussion, we speculated the implication of the results and the reason for the difference between the two experiments.

초록

Abstract

Traditional deception detection methods had examined the difference of one’s autonomic physiological responses through asking crime-related and crime-unrelated questions. There has been a continuing controversy regarding the accuracy and validity of the test, and thus, many researchers were motivated to explore and develop alternative efficient methods of detection in which one of them is known as P300-based Complex Trial Protocol (CTP). The P300-based CTP detects deception through comparing the P300 amplitudes between probe and irrelevant stimuli and is known as a counterstrategy of countermeasures. However, many previous studies have used countermeasures created from Rosenfeld et al.’s work (2008).The present study initially conducted a survey asking open-ended questions about the countermeasure use to acquire participant-oriented countermeasures for the main experiment. Then, the study aimed to evaluate whether the CTP can accurately detect deception even in the use of survey-based countermeasures. We firstly selected a set of participant-oriented countermeasures through survey questions. Then, a total of 50 participants were divided into three groups (innocent, guilty, and countermeasures) and performed the CTP. Those assigned to the countermeasures group covertly performed mental countermeasures during the CTP. The results of P300 amplitude analysis revealed that the guilty group’s P300 amplitude of probe stimuli was significantly larger than that of irrelevant stimuli. Countermeasures group also had a significantly larger P300 amplitude for probe stimuli compared to irrelevant stimuli, even in the use of countermeasures. The results of bootstrapped amplitude difference (BAD) showed a detection accuracy rate of 81.25%, 82.35%, 82.35% for the innocent, guilty, and countermeasures groups, respectively. These findings demonstrate that the CTP can obtain a high detection rate in participant-oriented countermeasures and suggest the potential use of the CTP in the