Salience of guilty knowledge test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes

Jokinen, Anne; Santtila, Pekka; Ravaja, Niklas; Puttonen, Sampsa

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.04.004

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Experiment 2, the difference was much less pronounced: Only 1.15 points, representing a moderate effect. The data indicate that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection and thereby extend item saliency effects from physiological measures (Carmel, Dayan, Naveh, Raveh, & Ben-Shakhar, 2003;Gamer & Berti, 2012;Gamer, Kosiol, & Vossel, 2010;Jokinen et al, 2006;Lieblich et al, 1976;Nahari & Ben-Shakhar, 2011;Peth, Vossel, & Gamer, 2012) to RTs. We think that the 21 use of an independent assessment of item saliency will be of great use in future research.…”

Section: Item Saliencymentioning

confidence: 62%

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

Verschuere¹,

Kleinberg²,

Theocharidou³

2015

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was an Internet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection. RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was anInternet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection.Max 6

show abstract

Section: Item Saliencymentioning

confidence: 62%

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

Verschuere¹,

Kleinberg²,

Theocharidou³

2015

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Verschuere et al, 2004). In some studies, participants were first asked to commit a mock crime, in which they encountered all the relevant details of the crime that later served as critical items in the CIT (Bradley and Rettinger, 1992;Bradley and Warfield, 1984;Carmel et al, 2003;Gamer et al, 2008;Jokinen et al, 2006). All these studies have in common that the responses to critical items, which are supposed to be particularly significant to the guilty subject, are compared with the responses to irrelevant items without particular significance.…”

Section: Stimulus Significance In the Citmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological responses in a Concealed Information Test are determined interactively by encoding procedure and questioning format

Ambach

Dummel

Lüer

et al. 2011

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…a mock crime) with real objects and a text-based interrogation is quite common in a CIT (e.g. Jokinen et al, 2006), fewer authors used pictures of objects as stimuli (e.g. Lefebvre et al, 2001;Verschuere et al, 2004); most ERP studies in this field used written words (e.g.…”

Section: Verbal and Pictorial Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

A Concealed Information Test with multimodal measurement

Ambach

Bursch

Stark

et al. 2010

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Salience of guilty knowledge test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes

Cited by 29 publications

References 20 publications

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol.

Physiological responses in a Concealed Information Test are determined interactively by encoding procedure and questioning format

A Concealed Information Test with multimodal measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About