open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 2093-3843
This study aims to examine factors that influence the severity of aggressive driving from a comprehensive perspective. For the analysis, we used data from the Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice(KICJ) and analyzed 1,452 drivers aged 20 and above who had aggressive driving experiences between August 2019 and July 2020. Individual factors such as drivers’ gender, age, and self-control were measured, and the presence of a passenger during instances of aggressive driving was measured as a situational factor. The results revealed that there were no significant gender differences among aggressive drivers severity, but age differences were evident. The younger drivers were more likely to engage in aggressive driving. Contrary to the general expectation that the presence of a passenger would act as a protective factor, drivers exhibited more severe aggressive driving when accompanied by passengers. Furthermore, younger drivers demonstrated more aggressive driving when passengers were present. Lastly, the study confirmed that the presence of a passenger moderated the relationship between self-control and aggressive driving. Specifically, drivers with low self-control were more likely to drive more aggressively when a passenger is present. While this study has limitations due to its use of secondary data, it is significant in that it addresses aggressive driving more comprehensively by considering the driver’s self-control and the presence of a passenger. This study is timely, considering the current situation where aggressive driving is emerging as a serious social problem.
Between 2016 and 2017, a study examined 91 cases in which defendants confessed during the investigation and trial processes, verifying the consistency between these confessions and the results of psychophysiological detection of deception(PDD) tests conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of the Republic of Korea(SPO). The accuracy during all decision-making stages conducted by the SPO exceeded 90%, surpassing the accuracy recorded by automated scoring and analysis programs and that reported by the American Polygraph Association using similar techniques. Signal detection theory was applied to calculate sensitivity (d') and decision criterion (c), revealing that the sensitivity at each decision-making stage-from the examiner's initial opinion to the review opinion by SPO examiners and the final opinion- exceeded 3. This sensitivity was higher than that recorded by automated scoring programs or in previous research findings. In terms of decision criteria (c), SPO examiners used relatively conservative criteria in decision-making, whereas the automated scoring program made decisions based on more liberal criteria. Additionally, in the case of the examiners, although the rate of inconclusive judgments was higher, it was observed that errors such as the high false alarm rates seen in the automated scoring program were smaller. This study, despite the possibility that the accuracy may be overstated due to the nature of confession-based research, provides empirical data based on actual cases to better understand the performance and characteristics of PDD tests conducted by SPO.
Statement consistency is critical when determining a suspect’s statement’s veracity. Low statement consistency of a suspect affects the perception that the statement is a lie. However, few studies have compared the effects of the four types of statement consistency (repetition, contradiction, omission, and reminiscence) on the perception of statement consistency and veracity. Perception of statement consistency also varies depending on the relevance of the inconsistent details. Therefore, veracity judgment and perception of statement consistency with differentiating components of statement consistency and detail relevance. A total of 192 participants were randomly assigned to a 3 (statement consistency type: contradiction vs. omission vs. reminiscence) × 2 (information relevance: central vs. peripheral) between-subjects design, along with a control group (repetition). Participants read repeated suspect’s interview transcripts corresponding to each condition and evaluated the suspect’s statement consistency and veracity. The results showed that participants who read transcripts containing contradiction details evaluated the statements as less consistent and were more likely to judge them as deceptive than other conditions. These results suggest that participants perceive statement consistency differently depending on the type of inconsistency. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are also discussed.