바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.29 No.4
Citation Share

거짓진술행동에서 나타나는 정서적 각성 및 인지적 부하

The emotional arousal and cognitive load cues in liar's nonverbal behavior

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2015, v.29 no.4, pp.85-101
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2015.29.4.005
이혜수 (중앙대학교)
김재홍 (대검찰청)
오영록 (대검찰청)
이장한 (중앙대학교)
이혜수, 김재홍, 오영록, & 이장한. (2015). 거짓진술행동에서 나타나는 정서적 각성 및 인지적 부하. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 29(4), 85-101, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2015.29.4.005
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 거짓말 시 나타나는 정서적 각성과 인지적 부하가 거짓말 탐지에 미치는 영향을 비언어적 행동을 통해 확인하였다. 이를 위해 45명의 대학생(거짓: 22명, 진실: 23명)을 대상으로 모의범죄를 수행시킨 후, 행동분석 면담(범죄 무관련/관련 질문)을 실시하며 두 대의 카메라로 정서적, 인지적 행동단서의 발생빈도를 측정하였다. 연구결과, 집단에 관계없이 범죄 무관련 질문보다 범죄 관련 질문에서 정서적 단서를 더 많이 드러냈으며, 질문유형에 따른 집단 간 차이는 나타나지 않았다. 인지적 단서의 경우, 거짓집단은 범죄 무관련 질문보다 범죄 관련 질문에서 인지적 단서를 더 많이 드러냈으나, 진실집단은 질문유형 간 인지적 단서의 차이는 나타나지 않았다. 정서적 단서와 인지적 단서를 이용하여 집단에 대한 분류 정확도를 산출한 결과, 인지적 단서의 분류 정확도가 정서적 단서보다 높게 나타났다(인지적 단서: 82.20%, 정서적 단서: 57.20%). 본 연구를 통해 비언어적 행동을 이용한 거짓말 탐지에 있어 인지적 접근이 더 효과적임을 확인할 수 있었다.

keywords
정서적 각성, 인지적 부하, 비언어적 행동, 거짓말 탐지, Emotional arousal, cognitive load, nonverbal behavior, lie detection

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of emotional arousal on lie detection with nonverbal behaviors. Lie (n=22) and truth (n=23) groups were performed group’s mission and then were interviewed with question (crime irrelevant, crime relevant) about the mission recording the emotional and cognitive cue with two cameras. The frequency of four cognitive cues and seven emotional cues were coded by two trained coders. The results revealed that lie group showed more cognitive load cue in crime-relevant question than crime irrelevant question while truth group did not show the differences between two question type for cognitive cue. Emotional cue were shown more in crime relevant question than crime irrelevant question regardless of the groups and there were no differences between the groups by question type. Classification rate based on emotional cue and cognitive cue showed that classification rate of cognitive cue was higher than the one of emotional cue (cognitive cue: 82.20, emotional cue: 57.20). This study imply cognitive load approach might have more advantage of classify liar and truth teller.

keywords
정서적 각성, 인지적 부하, 비언어적 행동, 거짓말 탐지, Emotional arousal, cognitive load, nonverbal behavior, lie detection

참고문헌

1.

김민경, 이장한 (2010). 기만/조종 척도개발 및 타당화 연구. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, 12(3B), 1339-1349.

2.

김시업, 전우병, 김경하, 김미영, 전충현 (2005). 용의자의 거짓말 탐지를 위한 비언어적 단서탐색. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 19(1), 151-162.

3.

김정택, 신동균 (1978). STAI의 한국 표준화에 관한 연구. 최신의학, 21, 69-75.

4.

Biland, C., Py, J., Allione, J., Demarchi, S., & Abric, J. C. (2008). The effect of lying on intentional versus unintentional facial expressions. European Review of Applied Psychology, 58, 65-73.

5.

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.

6.

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.

7.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.

8.

Ekman, P. (1988). Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues and new finding. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(3), 163-175.

9.

Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton.

10.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32(1), 88-106.

11.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, C.A.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

12.

Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. R. (1991). Invited acticle: Face, voice, and body in detecting deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(2), 125-135.

13.

Gombos, V. A. (2006). The cognition of deception: The role of executive processes in producing lies. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monography, 132, 197-214.

14.

Gozna, L. F., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2001). The impact of individual differences on perception of lying in everyday life in a high stake situation. Personality and Individual Difference, 31, 1203- 1216.

15.

Happel, M. D. (2005). Neuroscience and the detection of deception. Review of Policy Research, 22, 667-685.

16.

Hurley, C. M., & Frank, M. G. (2011). Executing facial control during deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 119-131.

17.

Klinger, E. (1996). Emotional influences on cognitive processing, with implications for theories of both. In P. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York: Guilford.

18.

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, 133-137.

19.

Riggio, R, E., Salinas, C., & Tucker, J. (1988). Personality and deception ability. Personality Individual Difference, 9, 189-191.

20.

Sergent, J., & Bindra, D. (1981). Differential hemispheric processing of faces: Methodological considerations and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 89(3), 541-554

21.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

22.

Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal Indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-426.

23.

ten-Brinke, L., MacDonald, S., & Porter, S. (2012). Crocodile tears: Facial, verbal and body language behaviours associated with genuine and fabricated remorse. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 51-59.

24.

ten-Brinke, L., Porter, S., & Baker, A. (2011). Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions reveal emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 411-416.

25.

Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminalogical Psychology, 9, 159-181.

26.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., Robert, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4), 239-261.

27.

Vrij, A., Granhag, P, A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89-121.

28.

Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.

29.

Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher R. (2006). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style:　Individual difference in respondents’ experience. Personality and Individual Difference, 41, 589-599.

30.

Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253-265.

31.

Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. (2010). ‘Look into my eyes’: Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime and Law, 16(4), 327-348.

32.

Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책