(MIS)measuring cognitive load and arousal in deception: A multitrait–multimethod analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | (MIS)measuring cognitive load and arousal in deception: A multitrait–multimethod analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lahay, Ryan (AUTHOR), Leach, Amy‐May (AUTHOR), Cutler, Brian L. (AUTHOR), Woolridge, Lyndsay R. (AUTHOR), Elliott, Elizabeth (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Legal & Criminological Psychology. Feb2025, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p127-142. 16p. |
| Subjects: | Cognitive load, Arousal (Physiology), Statistical accuracy, Multitrait multimethod techniques, Evaluation methodology, Test validity, Self-report inventories, Lie detectors & detection |
| 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Legal & Criminological Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13553259 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/lcrp.12299 |
