The Application of Semantic Reaction Time in The Separation of Deceptive and Non-Deceptive People

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Hassan Sabouri Moghadam Ph.D. Student in Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Tabriz University, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Tabriz University, Iran

3 Professor of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Understanding and analyzing the human mind and behavior provides valuable data to discover criminals and free innocent people. The cognitive activity related to deception can be evaluated by the semantic reaction time measurement method, as a behavioral component of cognitive activity. The purpose of this research was to determine the difference in semantic reaction time in people with and without deception (lying) and this issue was investigated whether it is possible to use a precise tool to measure the response time of people to specific questions about truth concluded their answers. In this research, this time was measured using the semantic reaction time measurement task, which is a computer program. According to its goals, this research was of fundamental-applied type, and in terms of data collection method, it was semi-experimental with repeated measurements. The research sample was 28 people who willingly participated in this project in 2019. The research variables include the situational independent variable with two situations: 1) deception; 2) No cheating. The dependent variable was semantic reaction time and the control variables were male gender, age over twenty years, high school diploma and right-handedness. In this research, the exact delay time in answering the questions was calculated with the accuracy of one thousandth of a second, and based on the results, the hypothesis of the research was that the semantic reaction time in deceptive (false) answers to questions is longer than non-deceptive (true) answers. It was confirmed with a significance level of 0.001.

Keywords

References

 
1- ابراهیم زاد الیاس؛ علوى سیدمحمد، صمصامى خدادا فرشید. (1392). طراحى و پیاده سازى سیستم دروغ سنجى مبتنى بر سیگنال الکتروانسفالوگرافى. مجله علمی پژوهشی د انشگاه علوم پزشکی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران. سال یازدهم شماره 1 صفحات 20 تا  26.
2- آلن مت، جیمز. فیزیولوژی روانی-قانونی با استفاده از پلی گراف. (ترجمه محمدرضا یوسفی و همکاران). چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات موسسه فرهنگی هنری پردازش هوشمند علائم.1384
3- خوش زاد، سیدرضا و حیدر هاشمی. مصاحبه و بازجویی نوین. چاپ دوم. تهران: انتشارات برگ سبز دانش. 1386
4- ریچموند، ویرجینیاپی و جیمزسی مک کروسکی. رفتار غیرکلامی در روابط میان فردی. (ترجمه فاطمه سادات موسوی و ژیلا عبدالله‌پور). چاپ دوم. تهران: انتشارات نشر دانژه. 1388
5- لیبرمن، دیوید. از کجا بفهمیم کسی دارد دروغ می‌گوید؟ (ترجمه اسماعیل حسینی و محبوبه ایران‌نژاد) چاپ چهارم. تهران: انتشارات راشین. 1388
6- یوسفی، محمد رضا. آشنایی با تکنولوژی پلی گرافی. تهران: دانشگاه امام باقر (ع). 1386
7- Allen and W.G. Iacono, A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection, Psychophysiology 34 (1997), 234–240.
8- Boaz T.L. N.W. Perry, G. Raney, I.S. Fischler et al. Detection of guilty knowledge with event-related potentials, Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (1991), 788–795.
9- Boaz T.L. N.W. Perry, G. Raney, I.S. Fischler et al. Detection of guilty knowledge with event-related potentials, Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (1991), 788–795.
10- Dionisio D.P E, Granholm, W.A. Hillix and W.F. Perrine, Differentiation of deception using pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing, Psychophysiology 38 (2001), 205–211.
11- Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 1-19.
12- Homack S, Riccio C.A. A meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of the Stroop Color and Word Test with children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2004; (19): 725–743.
13- Khodadadi Mojtaba, Ahmadi Khodabakhsh, Sahraei Hedayat, Azadmarzabadi Esfandiar, Yadollahi Sara. Relationship between Intelligence and Reaction Time; A Review Study. International Journal of Medical Reviews, Volume 1, Issue 2, Spring 2014
14- Klein R. M. Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4):138{147, 2000.
15- Kok A. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity, Psychophysiology 38 (2001), 557–577
16- Li Fang, Huilin Zhu, Jie Xu, Qianqian Gao, Huan Guo, Shijing Wu, Xinge Li,1and Sailing He, Lie Detection Using fNIRS Monitoring of Inhibition-Related Brain Regions Discriminates Infrequent but not Frequent Liars, Front Hum Neurosci. 2018; 12: 71. Published online 2018 Mar, 13. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2018.00071.
17- Mark D. Happel, Neuroscience and the Detection of Deception, 21 September 2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2005.00166.x
18- Sporer S. L. and B. Schwandt. Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20:421446, 2006.
19- Sternberg Saul. Reaction-Time Experimentation. (saul@psych.upenn.edu).Revised, as of March 20, 2010
20- Suchotzki Kristina, Lying Takes Time: A Meta-Analysis on Reaction Time Measures of Deception. Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Marcusstraße 9-11, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. 2017.
21- Thornton  Kirtley E. PhD (2005) The QEEG in the Lie Detection Problem: The Localization of Guilt.
22- Tishelman AC, Franzen MD, Sharp BH, Friedman AC. An investigation of the test-retest reliability of the Stroop Color-Word Test across two intervals. Archives of Clinic Neuropsychology. 1987; (2): 265-272.
23- West R. Neural correlates of cognitive control and conflict detection in the Stroop and digit-location tasks. Neuropsychology. 2003; (41):1122–1135.
24- Zuckerman M. B. M. DePaulo, and R. Rosenthal. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz, editor, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, volume 14, pages 1-57. Academic Press, New York NY, 1981.
 
 
 
protectiv & security researches
Volume 10, Issue 39 - Serial Number 39
December 2022
Pages 145-164

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics