open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 2093-3843
The purpose of this study is to verify whether it is possible for participants to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects when they are exposed to criminal information utilizing an autobiographical implicit association test (aIAT). A total of 49 college students were randomly assigned to guilty group, innocent-aware group, or innocent-unaware group. Participants performed an aIAT to detect suspects after performing either mock crime or control task. It was verified that innocent suspect and guilty suspect exposed with crime information could be distinguished through D-score and reaction time, converted to symbolize strength of the association between guilty sentences, innocent sentences, and truth sentences. As a result of the analysis, guilty group showed significantly higher D-score than both innocent-aware group and innocent-unaware group. guilty group also showed faster response time in true-guilty condition than true-innocent condition. This shows that the association of true-guilty conditions is stronger than that of true-innocent conditions. On the other hand, the innocent-aware group showed a faster response time in the true-innocent condition than the true-guilty condition, and innocent-unaware group showed no significant difference between the two conditions. Through this, it was confirmed that innocent suspects exposed to criminal information can be discriminated according to the aIAT pattern, which has a faster reaction rate to the truth and innocence union than the guilty group. This study confirmed that suspects exposed to criminal information can be effectively discriminated using aIAT, and further suggests the usefulness and potential of aIAT in the field of lie detection.
Agosta, S., Ghirardi, V., Zogmaister, C., Castiello, U., & Sartori, G. (2011). Detecting fakers of the autobiographical IAT. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 299-306.
Agosta, S., Pezzoli, P., & Sartori, G. (2013). How to detect deception in everyday life and the reasons underlying it. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 256-262.
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2012). Current research and potential applications of the concealed information test: An overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 342.
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.
Ben-Shakhar, G., & Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception: A psychophysiological and international perspective. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ben-Shakhar, G., & Nahari, T. (2018). The external validity of studies examining the detection of concealed knowledge using the Concealed Information Test. In J. P. Rosenfeld (Ed.). Detecting concealed information and deception (pp. 59-76). London, UK: Elsevier.
Bradley, M. T., Barefoot, & Arsenault, A. M. (2011). Leakage of information to innocent suspects. In B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar, & E. Meijer (Eds.), Memory detection: Theory and application of the concealed information test (pp. 187-199). Cambridge: University press.
DePaulo, B. M., Epstein, J. A., & LeMay, C. S. (1990). Responses of the socially anxious to the prospect of interpersonal evaluation. Journal of Personality, 58(4), 623-640.
Gamer, M., Gödert, H. W., Keth, A., Rill, H-G., & Vossel, G. (2008). Electrodermal and phasic heart rate responses in the Guilty Action Test: Comparing guilty examinees to informed and uninformed innocents. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 69(1), 61-68.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwarz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216.
Hong, H. G., Kim, H.S., Ji, H. K., Kim, K. P., Jin. M. J., Hong, Y. N., & Hyun, M. H. (2014). Differences in psychological response among guilty, informed innocent and innocent group of participants in a concealed information test. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 33(3), 627-646.
Hong, H. G., Kim, H. S., Ji, H. K., & Kim, K. P. (2015). Study on difference of P3 amplitude between relevant and irrelevant stimulus in concealed information test using Event Related Potential (ERP): Focused on informed innocent group. Korean Journal of Stress Research, 23(2), 101-107.
Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception. In P. Granhag & L. Strömwall (Eds.), Detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 103-123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Honts, C. R., & Schweinle, W. (2009). Information gain of psychophysiological detection of deception in forensic and screening settings. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34(3), 161-172.
Hu, X., & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2012). Combining the p300‐complex trial‐based Concealed Information Test and the reaction time‐based autobiographical Implicit Association Test in concealed memory detection. Psychophysiology, 49(8), 1090-1100.
Iacono, W. G., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2019). Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 86-98.
Jang, K. W., Kim, D. Y., Cho, S., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Effects of the combination of P3-based GKT and reality monitoring on deceptive classification. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 18.
Jung, K. H., & Lee. J. H. (2009). Implicit and explicit attitude dissociation in spontaneous deceptive behavior. Acta Psychologica, 132(1), 62-67.
Klein Selle, N., Verschuere, B., Kindt, M., Meijer, E., & Ben‐Shakhar, G. (2016). Orienting versus inhibition in the Concealed Information Test: Different cognitive processes drive different physiological measures. Psychophysiology,53(4), 579-590.
Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology, 31(3), 291-308.
Lukács, G., Gula, B., Szegedi-Hallgató, E., & Csifcsák, G. (2017). Association-based concealed information test: A novel reaction time-based deception detection method. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 283-294.
Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detection industry. American Psychologist, 29(10), 725-739.
Lykken, D. T. (1981). A tremor in the blood. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Offe, H., & Offe, S. (2007). The comparison question test: Does it work and if so how?. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 291-303.
Orne, M. T. (1975). Implication of laboratory research for the detection of deception. In N. Ansley (Ed.), Legal admissibility of the polygraph (pp. 94-119). Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.
Podlesny, J. A. (2003). A paucity of operable case facts restricts applicability of the guilty knowledge technique in FBI criminal polygraph examinations. Forensic Science Communications, 5(3), 20-37.
Poter, S., ten-Brinke, L., Baker, A., & Wallace, B. (2010). Would I lie to you? “leakage” in deceptive facial expressions relates to psychopathy and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 133-137.
Riggio, R, E., Salinas, C., & Tucker, J. (1988). Personality and deception ability. Personality Individual Difference, 9(1), 189-191.
Satori, G., Agosta, S., Zogmaister, C., Ferrara, S. D., & Castiello, U. (2008). How to accurately assess autobiographical events. Psychological Science, 19(8), 772-780.
Saxe, L. (1991). Science and the CQT polygraph. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26(3), 223-231.
ten-Brinke, L., MacDonald, S., Porter, S., & O'connor, B. (2012). Crocodile tears: Facial, verbal and body language behaviours associated with genuine and fabricated remorse. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 51-59.
Vargo, E. J., Petróczi, A., Shah, I., & Naughton, D. P. (2014). It is not just memory: Propositional thinking influences performance on the autobiographical IAT. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 145(1), 150-155.
Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (Eds.). (2011). Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Verschuere, B., & Kleinberg, B. (2017). Assessing autobiographical memory: The web-based autobiographical Implicit Association Test. Memory, 25(4), 520-530.
Verschuere, B., & Meijer, E. (2014). What's on your mind?: Recent advances in memory detection using the concealed information test. European Psychologist, 19(3), 162-171.
Verschuere, B., Prati, V., & Houwer, J. D. (2009). Cheating the lie detector: Faking in the autobiographical Implicit Association Test. Psychological Science, 20(4), 410-413.
Winograd, M., & Rosenfeld, J. (2014). The impact of prior knowledge from participant instructions in a mock crime P300 concealed information test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 94(3), 473-481.
Yocom, J. D. (2007). An assessment of the validity of polygraph examinations for the psychophysiological detection of deception: A judicicial opinion and research study review. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22(2), 113-119.