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

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Legal and Criminological Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-27 DOI:10.1111/lcrp.12299
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Editorial acknowledgement Correction to “Susceptibility to violent extremism and cognitive rigidity: Registered replication, corroboration and open questions for criminological research and practice” Zmigrod, L. (2022). Susceptibility to violent extremism and cognitive rigidity: Registered replication, corroboration and open questions for criminological research and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12225 (In)credibly queer? Assessments of asylum claims based on sexual orientation Bias is persistent: Sequencing case information does not protect against contextual bias in criminal risk assessment
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1