(MIS)measuring cognitive load and arousal in deception: A multitrait–multimethod analysis

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Ryan Lahay, Amy-May Leach, Brian L. Cutler, Lyndsay R. Woolridge, Elizabeth Elliott
{"title":"(MIS)measuring cognitive load and arousal in deception: A multitrait–multimethod analysis","authors":"Ryan Lahay,&nbsp;Amy-May Leach,&nbsp;Brian L. Cutler,&nbsp;Lyndsay R. Woolridge,&nbsp;Elizabeth Elliott","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Cognitive load and arousal are cornerstones of many deception detection strategies and theories; in turn, their effective measurement is critical. However, fundamental criteria for establishing the quality and accuracy of measures have largely been overlooked. In this study, we examined the reliability and construct validity of common cognitive load and arousal measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We obtained three independent secondary datasets in which participants (<i>N</i> = 238) had lied or told the truth about witnessing a suspicious event. Using a multitrait–multimethod analysis, we assessed three measures of their cognitive load and arousal: participants' self-reports, trained coders' observations, and objective behaviours.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Although all measures were reliable, they achieved differing levels of validation. Specifically, measures of cognitive load showed evidence of convergent validity, but not discriminant validity. There was no empirical support for the construct validity of arousal measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These findings suggest that inconsistencies in the diagnosticity of cues to deception and theory support may be attributable to the measures employed. Researchers may not be assessing constructs of interest, particularly in the case of arousal.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 1","pages":"127-142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12299","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12299","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Cognitive load and arousal are cornerstones of many deception detection strategies and theories; in turn, their effective measurement is critical. However, fundamental criteria for establishing the quality and accuracy of measures have largely been overlooked. In this study, we examined the reliability and construct validity of common cognitive load and arousal measures.

Method

We obtained three independent secondary datasets in which participants (N = 238) had lied or told the truth about witnessing a suspicious event. Using a multitrait–multimethod analysis, we assessed three measures of their cognitive load and arousal: participants' self-reports, trained coders' observations, and objective behaviours.

Results

Although all measures were reliable, they achieved differing levels of validation. Specifically, measures of cognitive load showed evidence of convergent validity, but not discriminant validity. There was no empirical support for the construct validity of arousal measures.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that inconsistencies in the diagnosticity of cues to deception and theory support may be attributable to the measures employed. Researchers may not be assessing constructs of interest, particularly in the case of arousal.

(MIS)测量欺骗中的认知负荷和觉醒:一个多特征多方法的分析
认知负荷和觉醒是许多欺骗检测策略和理论的基础;反过来,他们的有效测量是至关重要的。然而,建立度量的质量和准确性的基本标准在很大程度上被忽视了。在本研究中,我们检验了常见的认知负荷和觉醒测量的信度和构念效度。方法我们获得了三个独立的辅助数据集,其中参与者(N = 238)在目击可疑事件时说谎或说实话。使用多特征-多方法分析,我们评估了他们的认知负荷和觉醒的三个指标:参与者的自我报告,训练有素的编码员的观察和客观行为。结果虽然所有的测量都是可靠的,但它们达到了不同程度的验证。具体而言,认知负荷的测量显示了收敛效度的证据,但没有区别效度。唤醒测量的构念效度没有实证支持。结论这些研究结果表明,欺骗线索的诊断准确性和理论支持的不一致可能归因于所采用的测量方法。研究人员可能没有评估兴趣的构念,特别是在唤起的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信