Response time concealed information test using fillers in cybercrime and concealed identity scenarios

References

• Anderson, R., Barton, C., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., van Eeten, M. J. G., Levi, M., Moore, T., & Savage, S. (2013). Measuring the cost of cybercrime. In R. Böhme (Ed.), The economics of information security and privacy (pp. 265–300). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_12
   Google Scholar
• Broadhead, S. (2018). The contemporary cybercrime ecosystem: A multi-disciplinary overview of the state of affairs and developments. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(6), 1180–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2017). Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-test instead of student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Jungman, N. (1992). Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eom, J.-S., Sohn, S., Park, K., Eum, Y.-J., & Sohn, J.-H. (2016). Effects of varying numbers of probes on RT-based CIT accuracy. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2016.11.2.23
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foerster, A., Wirth, R., Herbort, O., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2017). Lying upside-down: Alibis reverse cognitive burdens of dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. R. E. Krieger Pub. Co.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, X., Evans, A., Wu, H., Lee, K., & Fu, G. (2013). An interfering dot-probe task facilitates the detection of mock crime memory in a reaction time (RT)-based concealed information test. Acta Psychologica, 142(2), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167
   Google Scholar
• Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, K. (2019). MBESS: The MBESS R package. R package version 4.5.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBESS
   Google Scholar
• Kinoshita, S., Mozer, M. C., & Forster, K. I. (2011). Dynamic adaptation to history of trial difficulty explains the effect of congruency proportion on masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 622–636. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauer, K. C., & Mierke, J. (2005). Task-set inertia, attitude accessibility, and compatibility-order effects: New evidence for a task-set switching account of the implicit association test effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Memory detection 2.0: The first web-based memory detection test. Plos One, 10(4), e0118715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koller, D., Hofer, F., Ghelfi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2022). Nationality check in the face of information contamination: Testing the inducer-CIT and the autobiographical IAT. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2102170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, M. A. (2016). Ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. R package version 4.4-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez
   Google Scholar
• Lieblich, I., Naftali, G., Shmueli, J., & Kugelmass, S. (1974). Efficiency of GSR detection of information with repeated presentation of series of stimuli in two motivational states. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (2008). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Information Age Publishing Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G. (2021a). Addressing selective attrition in the enhanced response time-based concealed information test: A within-subject replication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G. (2021b). Neatstats: An R package for a neat pipeline from raw data to reportable statistics in psychological science. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 17(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.17.1.p007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G. (2022). Prolonged response time concealed information test decreases probe-control differences but increases classification accuracy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., & Ansorge, U. (2019). Information leakage in the response time-based concealed information test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1178–1196. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., & Ansorge, U. (2021). The mechanism of filler items in the response time concealed information test. Psychological Research, 85(7), 2808–2828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01432-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., Gula, B., Szegedi-Hallgató, E., & Csifcsák, G. (2017). Association-based concealed information test: A novel reaction time-based deception detection method. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., Kawai, C., Ansorge, U., & Fekete, A. (2021). Detecting concealed language knowledge via response times. Applied Linguistics Review, https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., Kleinberg, B., Kunzi, M., & Ansorge, U. (2020). Response time concealed information test on smartphones. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.255
   Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2017). Familiarity-related fillers improve the validity of reaction time-based memory detection. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, G., & Specker, E. (2020). Dispersion matters: Diagnostics and control data computer simulation in concealed information test studies. Plos One, 15(10), e0240259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M., & Lüdecke, D. (2019). Bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, I., Nittono, H., & Ogawa, T. (2013). Identifying concealment-related responses in the concealed information test. Psychophysiology, 50(7), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, E. H., klein Selle, N., Elber, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2014). Memory detection with the concealed information test: A meta analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data. Psychophysiology, 51(9), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, E. H., Verschuere, B., Gamer, M., Merckelbach, H., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2016). Deception detection with behavioral, autonomic, and neural measures: Conceptual and methodological considerations that warrant modesty. Psychophysiology, 53(5), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meixner, J. B., & Rosenfeld, J. P. (2014). Detecting knowledge of incidentally acquired, real-world memories using a P300-based concealed-information test. Psychological Science, 25(11), 1994–2005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614547278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2003). Polygraph and lie detection. The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420
   Google Scholar
• Noordraven, E., & Verschuere, B. (2013). Predicting the sensitivity of the reaction time-based concealed information test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. G., Gunnell, D. A., Mrowiec, A. J., & Watson, D. G. (2020). Seen this scene? Scene recognition in the reaction-time concealed information test. Memory & Cognition, 48(8), 1388–1402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01063-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, J., Rosenfeld, J. P., & Perrault, E. (2020). Familiarity-related filler items enhance the RT CIT, but not the P300 CIT: Episodic vs. Semantic memory protocols. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 158, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osugi, A. (2011). Daily application of the concealed information test: Japan. In B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar, & E. Meijer (Eds.), Memory detection (pp. 253–275). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975196.015
   Google Scholar
• Peth, J., Vossel, G., & Gamer, M. (2012). Emotional arousal modulates the encoding of crime-related details and corresponding physiological responses in the concealed information test. Psychophysiology, 49(3), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01313.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., & Furedy, J. J. (2006). P300-based detection of concealed autobiographical versus incidentally acquired information in target and non-target paradigms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour, T. L., & Schumacher, E. H. (2009). Electromyographic evidence for response conflict in the exclude recognition task. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.1.71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge".. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2004). Cyber criminals on trial. Criminal Justice Matters, 58(1), 22–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09627250408553240
   Google Scholar
• Suchotzki, K., De Houwer, J., Kleinberg, B., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Using more different and more familiar targets improves the detection of concealed information. Acta Psychologica, 185, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., & Gamer, M. (2021). How vulnerable is the reaction time concealed information test to faking? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Peth, J., Crombez, G., & Gamer, M. (2015). Manipulating item proportion and deception reveals crucial dissociation between behavioral, autonomic, and neural indices of concealed information. Human Brain Mapping, 36(2), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22637
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Van Bockstaele, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson, C. L., James, L. E., & Ingram, R. E. (2021). Incidental learning of proper names and “earwitness” recall. Memory, 29(5), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1925301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Doorn, J., Ly, A., Marsman, M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). Bayesian rank-based hypothesis testing for the rank sum test, the signed rank test, and Spearman’s ρ. Journal of Applied Statistics, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2019.1709053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Detecting concealed information in less than a second: Response latency-based measures. In B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar, & E. Meijer (Eds.), Memory detection (pp. 46–62). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975196.004
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Kleinberg, B., & Theocharidou, K. (2015). RT-based memory detection: Item saliency effects in the single-probe and the multiple-probe protocol. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visu-Petra, G., Varga, M., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2013). When interference helps: Increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information test. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wojciechowski, J., & Lukács, G. (2022). Importance-related fillers improve the classification accuracy of the response time concealed information test in a crime scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar