UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge Boisvenu, Guy Antonio 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 B65.pdf [ 5.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094960.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094960-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094960-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094960-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094960-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094960-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094960-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094960-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094960.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM AND METHYLPHENIDATE ON THE ELECTRODERMAL DETECTION OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE by GUY ANTONIO BOISVENU B.A., La u r e n t i a n U n i v e r s i t y , 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1982 (6) Guy Antonio Boisvenu, 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of f\.Q The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 r^/an ABSTRACT S i x t y male undergraduate students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n an experiment designed to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of a n t i a n x i e t y and s t i m u l a n t drugs on p o l y g r a p h i c i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Subjects were randomly a s s i g n e d to one of four groups. Three of the groups watched a 12 minute videotape d e p i c t i n g the b u r g l a r y of an apartment through the eyes of the t h i e f . Each s u b j e c t was asked to imagine that i t was he who was committing the crime and was given i n s t r u c t i o n s to encourage h i s becoming absorbed i n the videotape. Afterwards, they were accused of commiting t h i s crime. Each subject r e c e i v e d one of three l o o k - a l i k e c a p s u l e s c o n t a i n i n g a drug which, they were t o l d , would h e l p them to escape d e t e c t i o n . Capsules f o r the f i r s t group c o n t a i n e d 10 mg of diazepam; those f o r the second group, 20 mg of methylphenidate; a placebo was given to the t h i r d group. S u b j e c t s i n the f o u r t h group, the innocent c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , viewed a 10 minute videotape sequence showing the i n t e r i o r of another apartment, t h i s time with no crime committed. They d i d not r e c e i v e any medication or placebo a f t e r they were accused of committing the crime. A f t e r a one hour wait, a l l s u b j e c t s were i n t e r r o g a t e d by the experimenter, who was b l i n d to both t h e i r g u i l t or innocence and drug s t a t u s . Skin conductance, heart r a t e and r e s p i r a t i o n were monitored; a l l c h a r t s were scored b l i n d l y . No drug e f f e c t s were found i n the g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or i n any of the p h y s i o l o g i c a l channels in being monitored. The o v e r a l l h i t r a t e , i n c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s , was 81.7%. A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e c a l l of g u i l t y i n f o r m a t i o n and d e t e c t a b i l i t y was a l s o found. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Major paradigms 4 G u i l t y Person S t u d i e s 5 G u i l t y Knowledge S t u d i e s ...9 Meth o d o l o g i c a l Issues 15 P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures.... 20 Experimental Tasks... 23 Procedural D i f f e r e n c e s i n the I n t e r r o g a t i o n Technique 30 P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s 36 Attempts to Beat the Polygraph 39 Aims of t h i s Study 42 Review of Drug L i t e r a t u r e 43 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Overview 52 P r e l i m i n a r y Work:Phase 1 53 Subject s 55 Instruments and M a t e r i a l s 55 Design 57 Procedure 59 P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures .67 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS D e s c r i p t i v e Subject Data 70 V a l i d a t i o n of Crime F i l m and V7 CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F I n t e r r o g a t i o n P r o t o c o l 74 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s 79 G u i l t E f f e c t s 79 Drug E f f e c t s . . . . . . 88 Post-hoc Analyses 93 DISCUSSION C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s 99 Drug E f f e c t s 99 G u i l t E f f e c t s 101 V a l i d a t i o n of Crime F i l m and I n t e r r o g a t i o n P r o t o c o l 102 Post-hoc Ana l y s e s . . . 104 CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERROGATION PROTOCOL SUBJECT AVAILABILITY FORM AND MEDICAL SURVEY SUBJECT DEBRIEFING FORMS SUBJECT CONSENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS DPQ SUBJECT FEEDBACK FORM LIST OF'TABLES Table 1 Summary of Accuracy r a t e s f o r S t u d i e s Employing a Mock Crime 25 Table 2 Summary of Accuracy r a t e s f o r S t u d i e s Employing a Card Test 26 Table 3 Summary of Accuracy r a t e s f o r St u d i e s Using Memorized Words 29 Table 4 Summary of Accuracy r a t e s f o r S t u d i e s Using B i o g r a p h i c a l Information 29 Table 5 U n i v a r i a t e F T e s t s 73 Table 6 W r i t i n g S t y l e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 75 Table 7 Number of Subjects Found G u i l t y or Innocent i n Each Group 80 Table 8 Post-hoc C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Table 94 Table 9 C o r r e l a t i o n s between P e r s o n a l i t y Measures and G u i l t Scores 96 Table 10 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between P e r s o n a l i t y Measures and Number of Scorable Questions 97 LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e 1 Experimental Design 58 F i g u r e 2 Anxiety Measures (STAI) 71 F i g u r e 3 DPQ P e r s o n a l i t y Scores 72 F i g u r e 4 L a t e r a l i t y Scores 76 F i g u r e 5 S u b j e c t s ' Conf idence Ratings 77 F i g u r e 6 R e c a l l of C r i t i c a l Knowledge 78 F i g u r e 7 Heart Rate P r i o r to Each Question 82 F i g u r e 8 R e s p i r a t i o n Time 84 F i g u r e 9 Skin Conductance L e v e l s P r i o r to Each Question.' 85 F i g u r e 10 Number of Scorable Questions 86 F i g u r e 11 Average SCRs to Innocent and G u i l t y A l t e r n a t i v e s 87 F i g u r e 12 Subjects' Ratings of T h e i r Own Drug Status....90 \I\U F i g u r e 13 Examiner's Ratings of S u b j e c t s ' Drug S t a t u s . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. W. G. Iacono for h i s he l p , h i s guidance and h i s constant support throughout t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . H is encouragement was a l s o a p p r e c i a t e d d u r i n g the w r i t i n g of the t h e s i s . I a l s o wish to thank the Department of Psychology of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r i t s p a r t i n funding t h i s p r o j e c t . 1 CHAPTER 1 2 INTRODUCTION Since i t s b i r t h at the turn of the century, polygraphy has grown from an e s o t e r i c c r i m i n o l o g i c a l s p e c i a l t y to a m u l t i - m i l l i o n d o l l a r i n d u s t r y . As of 1979, i t i s estimated that between 4,000 to 7,000 p r o f e s s i o n a l polygraphers p l y t h e i r trade i n the United S t a t e s (Lykken, 1981). If one estimates a minimum number of 4,000 polygraphers each g i v i n g only one l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t per day, one i s amazed to f i n d that over one m i l l i o n Americans w i l l undergo such a t e s t i n any given year. Contrary to popular b e l i e f however, polygraphy's most l u c r a t i v e f i e l d of endeavor i s not the c r i m i n a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . In f a c t , most polygraphers devote a great p o r t i o n of t h e i r time to p r i v a t e s e c t o r work, s c r e e n i n g p o t e n t i a l employees f o r p r i v a t e f i r m s or t e s t i n g present employees. The l a t t e r i s done e i t h e r as a d e t e r r e n t to white c o l l a r crime, or as a way of p r i v a t e l y s e t t l i n g such crimes when they do occur. A recent survey ( B e l t and Holden, 1978) shows that 20% of the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' major c o r p o r a t i o n s and 50% of i t s r e t a i l companies make use of polygraphers' s e r v i c e s e i t h e r on an o c c a s i o n a l or r e g u l a r b a s i s . Even though Canadians have been much l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c i n t h e i r r e c e p t i o n of polygraphers, such firms as Coinamatic n e v e r t h e l e s s p e r s i s t i n h i r i n g them ("Hiring questionnaire, upsets m i n i s t e r " , 1982). The e v o l u t i o n of t h i s d i s c i p l i n e i s marked with c o l o r f u l c h a r a c t e r s and i n t e r e s t i n g i n c i d e n t s ; there i s a l s o a h e a l t h y share of t r a g i c s t o r i e s about the e f f e c t 3 t h i s r a t h e r simple machine has had on people's l i v e s (Lykken, 1981). I t i s only i n the past twenty years however, that p s y c h o l o g i s t s have renewed t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h i s p r o d i g a l o f f s p r i n g and devoted some of t h e i r r e s e a r c h e n e r g i e s to i t . In f a c t , a f t e r having p u b l i s h e d h i s f i r s t ^ two a r t i c l e s on the t o p i c (Lykken, 1959 and 1960), Lykken found h i m s e l f the author of 10% of the s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e p u b l i s h e d at t h i s p o i n t on l i e d e t e c t i o n , thus making him, as he amusingly puts i t , a l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t y worthy of being i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a conference on p o l y g r a p h i c i n t e r r o g a t i o n sponsored by the I n s t i t u t e f o r Defense A n a l y s i s (Lykken, 1978). Lykken (1974,1978,1981) has o f t e n urged f e l l o w p s y c h o l o g i s t s to do more r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s two d i s c i p l i n e s that are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of psychology, psychometry and psychophysiology. A few p s y c h o l o g i s t s have taken up t h i s c a l l and, over the past twenty years, have p u b l i s h e d v a l u a b l e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a . Most of t h e i r work i s reviewed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . Research p u b l i s h e d i n j o u r n a l s other than those u s u a l l y espoused by p s y c h o l o g i s t s have been in great p a r t excluded s i n c e they were not put to the s t r i n g e n t t e s t of an APA-type e d i t o r i a l review board. More o f t e n than not, such s t u d i e s tend to be a n e c d o t a l i n nature, or l e s s w e l l c o n t r o l l e d than t h e i r p s y c h o l o g i c a l j o u r n a l c o u n t e r p a r t s . They do however have the advantage of being c a r r i e d out i n the f i e l d with r e a l crimes and a c t u a l suspects, as opposed to most of the f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s which were c a r r i e d out i n 4 a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g s with c o l l e g e students s e r v i n g as s u b j e c t s . T h i s tends to l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the l a t t e r studys' f i n d i n g s . Major Paradigms: One b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n that can be made f o r l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s i n the d e t e c t i o n of decept i o n i s t h a t between " G u i l t y Person" and " G u i l t y Knowledge" paradigms (Gustafson and Orne, 1964). In the G u i l t y Person paradigm, the task of the experimenter i s to determine whether or not a s u b j e c t i s " g u i l t y " of a c e r t a i n crime or task . T h i s i s done by comparing the s u b j e c t ' s p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses to the c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n (e.g., "Did you s t e a l Mr. Brown's go l d watch?") with h i s p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses to c o n t r o l and/or i r r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s (e.g., "Is your name r e a l l y . . . ? " ) . Most f i e l d polygraphers employ techniques based on t h i s paradigm. A ra t h e r exhaustive, i f somewhat c r i t i c a l , review of these techniques can be found i n Lykken (1981). In the G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm, the experimenter attempts to determine i f the su b j e c t possesses or rec o g n i z e s c e r t a i n knowledge that i s s p e c i f i c to the crime and which only the g u i l t y person and persons i n v e s t i g a t i n g the crime should know. T h i s i s done by ask i n g s e v e r a l m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s i n which on l y one a l t e r n a t i v e per q u e s t i o n i s ac c u r a t e ; the other p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s serve the r o l e of c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n s (Lykken, 1959). A qu e s t i o n r e l a t i n g to a stabbing death might look something l i k e t h i s : " I f you are g u i l t y of John Doe's murder, 5 then you know what was used to k i l l him." "Was i t a rope?" "Was i t a gun?" "Was i t a hammer?" "Was i t a k n i f e ? " "Was i t an axe?" Although r e s e a r c h has been done with both paradigms, no d i r e c t comparisons have been made as to the r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of these two models. The r e s u l t s obtained from both types of study are presented s e p a r a t e l y . G u i I t y Person; Gustafson and Orne (1964) t e s t e d 29 s u b j e c t s using both the Peak-of-Tension and Relevant-I r r e l e v a n t t e s t s (see Lykken, 1981 f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of these and other t e c h n i q u e s ) . They found that they c o u l d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h between g u i l t y and innocent s u b j e c t s using both methods. In 1965, while i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of s u b j e c t ' s p e r c e i v e d r o l e and r o l e success, these same authors (Gustafson and Orne, 1965a) found that i n t h e i r optimal group, 75% of s u b j e c t s who p e r c e i v e d t h e i r task as being a de c e p t i v e one were d e t e c t e d d u r i n g d e c e p t i o n . In the same year, they i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of s u b j e c t s e m i t t i n g a v e r b a l response (Gustafson and Orne, 1965b). In the optimum group, they d e t e c t e d 76% of t h e i r s u b j e c t s using the R e l e v a n t - I r r e l e v a n t method of i n t e r r o g a t i o n and 74% usi n g the Peak-of-Tension method. Bersh (1969) had polygraph records f o r 157 a c t u a l cases b l i n d l y r a t e d by p r o f e s s i o n a l polygraphers using two 6 d i f f e r e n t techniques. A panel of four a t t o r n e y s had p r e v i o u s l y a r r i v e d at unanimous judgements on these cases ( g u i l t y / n o t g u i l t y ) . D e c i s i o n s based on two methods of s c o r i n g polygraph c h a r t s agreed with the four-man panel 90% of the time. One might doubt i f such r e s u l t s c o u l d be found when the panel c o u l d not reach a unanimous d e c i s i o n ; i t i s i n such cases though that the polygraph t e s t c o u l d be of g r e a t e s t p r a c t i c a l use. Horvath and Reid (1971) submitted 40 polygraph records to ten examiners. Twenty of these records had been v e r i f i e d as being t r u t h f u l , twenty as being d e c e p t i v e . The i n t e r r o g a t i o n s had been done using the C o n t r o l Question technique. Accuracy scores ranged from 79% to 91%, with a mean of 87.8% accuracy. Once again, however, one must wonder i f t h i s high accuracy would be maintained i n cases where the a c t u a l outcome (the v a l i d i t y c r i t e r i o n ) i s not so c l e a r . Cutrow et a l . , (1972) found that s i x measures, i n c l u d i n g c a r d i o v a s c u l a r , r e s p i r a t o r y and e l e c t r o d e r m a l a c t i v i t y , c o u l d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.05 to p<.0l) d e t e c t d e c e p t i o n i n 63 male and female undergraduate students. Cards with e i t h e r blanks or words were used as s t i m u l i . Q u e s t i o n i n g was done u s i n g the R e l e v a n t - I r r e l e v a n t technique. Hunter and Ash (1973) obtained 20 polygraph records from a c t u a l cases of t h e f t , homicide, sexual a s s a u l t , b r u t a l i t y and o f f i c i a l misconduct. Half of these records had been v e r i f i e d as being t r u t h f u l , h a l f as being non-7 t r u t h f u l . Seven examiners judged these records once and unknowingly repeated t h i s procedure three months l a t e r . Accuracy scores ranged from 82.5% to 90% (mean=86%); c o n s i s t e n c y scores ranged from 75% to 90% (mean=85%). U n f o r t u n a t e l y one s t i l l cannot assess the p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e of case s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n such a r c h i v a l s t u d i e s . Barland and Raskin (1975) had 36 s u b j e c t s commit a mock crime, while 36 other s u b j e c t s were assig n e d to an innocent group. Three c h a r t s per sub j e c t were generated using the C o n t r o l Question i n t e r r o g a t i o n format. A high degree of agreement was found between examiner judgements (86%). O v e r a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was 53% c o r r e c t , 12% i n c o r r e c t , and 35% i n c o n c l u s i v e . If one excludes the i n c o n c l u s i v e cases from t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n , 81% of the s u b j e c t s can be c o n s i d e r e d as having been c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . Wicklander and Hunter (1975) a l s o d i d an a r c h i v a l study with 20 polygraph r e c o r d s . H a l f of these records had been v e r i f i e d as being t r u t h f u l , h a l f as u n t r u t h f u l . The cases d e a l t with homicide, t h e f t s , sexual a s s a u l t s and o f f i c i a l misconduct. The f i r s t time that the s i x judges viewed the re c o r d s , they had no a u x i l i a r y i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e i r accuracy was approximately 88%. Two months l a t e r , they viewed the same re c o r d s , but t h i s time they had access to a u x i l i a r y i n f o r m a t i o n : case h i s t o r y , s u b j e c t data and v e r b a l - n o n v e r b a l behavior d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h i s time, t h e i r accuracy scores were s l i g h t l y h i g h e r , 92.5%. Again though, the case s e l e c t i o n 8 b i a s s e v e r e l y l i m i t s the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e i r f i n d i n g s . Raskin and Hare (1978) conducted a mock crime study using p r i s o n inmates as s u b j e c t s . Twenty-four of the 48 su b j e c t s were psychopaths. Using the C o n t r o l Question technique of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , judges succeeded i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y i n g 88% of the s u b j e c t s ; 4% were i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d and 8% were judged i n c o n c l u s i v e . Waid et a l . , (1979) had 15 s u b j e c t s memorize a l i s t of s i x code-words while 15 "innocent" s u b j e c t s engaged i n a d i s t r a c t i n g task. Using the C o n t r o l Question technique, 80% of s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as t r u t h f u l or u n t r u t h f u l . With the Peak-of-Tension technique, the f i g u r e dropped to 63%. The study was not designed to compare the two methods, however, so that no judgement as to r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y s c a n be made. Dawson (1980) r e c r u i t e d 24 a c t o r s to take p a r t i n h i s mock crime study. Half were g u i l t y of the mock crime, h a l f were innocent. Two response modes were used with the C o n t r o l Question technique: immediate and delayed response. With the immediate response, 75% of s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d , 12% were i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d and 12% had records judged to be i n c o n c l u s i v e . With the delayed response, accuracy scores were very low when determined by the p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses to the answers (29%); they were good i f the p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses to the q u e s t i o n s themselves were scored (83%). Waid and Orne (1980) i n v i t e d a p r o f e s s i o n a l 9 polygrapher to i n t e r r o g a t e 15 innocent s u b j e c t s and 15 g u i l t y s u b j e c t s who had memorized a l i s t of s i x code-words. They obtained a h i t r a t e of 80%. Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) obtained s i m i l a r r e s u l t s (84% h i t ra t e ) with 192 male undergraduate v o l u n t e e r s . H a l f of these s u b j e c t s committed a mock crime. A l l s u b j e c t s were i n t e r r o g a t e d u sing the C o n t r o l Question procedure. Szucko and Kleinmuntz (1981) obtained s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s (p<.0l) when they performed a H o t e l l i n g T 2 a n a l y s i s on v a r i o u s p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures obtained from 15 innocent and 15 g u i l t y undergraduate psychology students. O v e r a l l , these s t u d i e s show a wide range of h i t r a t e s . In order to e x p l a i n t h i s v a r i a n c e i n e f f i c a c y , one must assess the i n f l u e n c e of methodological f a c t o r s on the outcome of these s t u d i e s . We w i l l examine some of these major i s s u e s a f t e r the s t u d i e s u s i n g the G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm have been reviewed. G u i l t y Knowledge: The f i r s t study to be done using the G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm was done by Lykken (1959). F o r t y - n i n e c o l l e g e students were d i v i d e d i n t o four groups. One group committed a mock t h e f t , another a mock murder, another both mock crimes and the l a s t d i d not commit any mock cri m e s . S i x G u i l t y Knowledge ( i . e . , m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e format) q u e s t i o n s were used f o r the mock t h e f t and s i x more were used f o r the mock murder. Subjects were c o r r e c t l y judged as to t h e i r experimental c o n d i t i o n ( i . e . , g u i l t y of t h e f t / g u i l t y of murder/ g u i l t y of both/ 10 innocent) i n 89.8% of the cases. The g u i l t versus innocent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n y i e l d e d a 93.9% h i t r a t e . Twenty s u b j e c t s f i l l e d out a b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n form and were l a t e r i n t e r r o g a t e d so as to determine which form corresponded to which su b j e c t (Lykken, 1960). Since f i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used at a time d u r i n g the G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n , p r o b a b i l i t y f o r a s s i g n i n g a subj e c t to the c o r r e c t form was 20%. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 100% of the s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d even though a t a n g i b l e monetary reward had been o f f e r e d to any s u b j e c t s who c o u l d "beat" the t e s t . Gustafson and Orne (1963) induced high m o t i v a t i o n to defeat the polygraph i n 18 of t h e i r s u b j e c t s and low mo t i v a t i o n i n another 18 s u b j e c t s . On two s u c c e s s i v e t r i a l s , 67% and 61% of h i g h l y motivated s u b j e c t s were unable to "beat" the t e s t ; f o r the unmotivated group the r e s u l t s on the two t r i a l s were 33% and 22% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The same authors (Gustafson and Orne, 1964) found s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s (p<.0l) when the Peak-of-Tension method of i n t e r r o g a t i o n was used i n a G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm. While i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of three d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of r e a l i s t i c s t r e s s , Kugelmass and L i e b l i c h (1966) obtained h i t r a t e s of 44%, 53%, and 47% versus chance c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 17%. Kugelmass, L i e b l i c h and Bergman (1967) conducted a card t e s t with 27 s u b j e c t s . Subjects who answered "no" to each a l t e r n a t i v e were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d 59% of the time; s u b j e c t s who answered "yes" to 11 each a l t e r n a t i v e , 70% of the time. The d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . Davidson (1968) designed a study where 48 s u b j e c t s p l a y e d the "hunter" game. Twelve of the s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d out a mock murder. Another twelve attempted to commit the crime but were not s u c c e s s f u l . Another twelve were motivated to commit the crime but were not given the op p o r t u n i t y t o attempt i t . The l a s t group of twelve s u b j e c t s had no idea of the nature of the experiment. F i v e of the s i x g u i l t y s u b j e c t s with low m o t i v a t i o n to beat the l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t were detected; a l l s i x i n the high m o t i v a t i o n group were d e t e c t e d . A l l t h i r t y - s i x innocent s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . T h i s y i e l d s an o v e r a l l h i t r a t e of 98% versus 25% chance p r o b a b i l i t y . Thackray and Orne (1968) found that e l e c t r o d e r m a l measures c o u l d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t t e r than chance when t h i r t y undergraduate students engaged i n a code-word deception experiment. Ben Shakhar, L i e b l i c h and Kugelmass (1970) attempted a r e p l i c a t i o n of Lykken's (1960) b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n study. In the f i r s t experiment, 77% of t h e i r 27 s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y matched with t h e i r b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . In the second experiment, they used d i f f e r e n t c u t - o f f p o i n t s i n t h e i r decision-making p r o c e s s . The optimal h i t r a t e o b tained i n t h i s second p a r t of the study was 67%. L i e b l i c h , Ben Shakhar and Kugelmass (1976) performed a s i m i l a r task with 30 randomly s e l e c t e d p r i s o n e r s from a Jewish maximum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n . They succeeded i n c o r r e c t l y matching 62% 12 of t h e i r s u b j e c t s to the a p p r o p r i a t e b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Waid, et a l . , . (1978) conducted three s i m i l a r experiments w i t h i n one study. Words belonging to s i x d i f f e r e n t semantic c a t e g o r i e s were s e l e c t e d f o r memorization by s u b j e c t s . Some s u b j e c t s d i d not memorize any of these code words. H i t r a t e s f o r both innocent and g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were 78%, 71% and 77% i n the three experiments. B a l l o u n and Holmes (1979) s e l e c t e d 18 s u b j e c t s out of 300 male undergraduate students who scored the hi g h e s t on the MMPI Pd s c a l e and 16 s u b j e c t s who scored lowest on the Pd s c a l e . Each of these s u b j e c t s was put i n a s i t u a t i o n where experimental c o n f e d e r a t e s induced them to cheat on a t e s t . Approximately h a l f of the s u b j e c t s i n the study cheated on that t e s t . Two d e t e c t i o n of decept i o n t e s t s were performed f o r each s u b j e c t . On the f i r s t t e s t , 61% of ch e a t e r s and 88% of non-cheaters were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . On the second t e s t , 17% of cheat e r s and 94% of non-cheaters were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . Waid, et a l . , (1979) had 15 s u b j e c t s memorize a l i s t of s i x code words and perform other tasks while 15 innocent s u b j e c t s only performed the other t a s k s . The G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n used i n t h i s case helped the i n v e s t i g a t o r s o b t a i n a 76% h i t r a t e . Giesen and R o l l i s o n (1980) s e l e c t e d 40 s u b j e c t s out of 122 female undergraduate students who scored the highest on a palmar sweating s c a l e . One h a l f of these 13 s u b j e c t s were then asked to perform a s e c r e t agent task while the other h a l f were a s s i g n e d to the innocent c o n d i t i o n . A l l of the innocent s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d a f t e r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n and only one g u i l t y s u b j e c t escaped d e t e c t i o n . T h i s y i e l d s an o v e r a l l h i t r a t e of 97.5%. Waid and Orne (1980) conducted two experiments designed to i n v e s t i g a t e the r o l e of e l e c t r o d e r m a l l a b i l i t y i n the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Code words were used i n both p a r t s of the study. In the f i r s t experiment, 75% of the 28 s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as to g u i l t or innocence. In the second experiment, i n t e r r o g a t i o n by a p r o f e s s i o n a l polygrapher y i e l d e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s f o r both the G u i l t y Knowledge and G u i l t y Person approaches to i n t e r r o g a t i o n : an 80% h i t r a t e . Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) d i v i d e d t h e i r 192 male undergraduate s u b j e c t s i n t o two equal groups. The f i r s t group was asked to s t e a l some money from a w a i t i n g room while the other group was assign e d to the innocent c o n d i t i o n . With the G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n , 74% of the s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as to g u i l t or innocence. F i n a l l y , Waid, et a l . , (1981) assig n e d 11 s u b j e c t s to t h e i r innocent group, and 33 s u b j e c t s to t h e i r g u i l t y c o n d i t i o n . The g u i l t y s u b j e c t s had to memorize a l i s t of si x words. T h i r t y minutes p r i o r to i n t e r r o g a t i o n , 11 of the g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were given an a n x i o l y t i c medication while 11 others were given a placebo. The remaining 11 14 g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were not given a n y t h i n g . I f one excludes the drug group from s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , 85% of the remaining 33 s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as to g u i l t or innocence. Although some of the accuracy r a t e s obtained i n both G u i l t y Person and G u i l t y Knowledge s t u d i e s appear q u i t e high, one must be wary of the a c t u a l chance p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t e x i s t s i n each study. Thus, i f one o b t a i n s a 60% h i t r a t e i n a study where the r a t i o of g u i l t y s u b j e c t s to innocent s u b j e c t s i s , say 1:4 ( i . e . , chance=25%), t h i s i s much more impressive than i f one o b t a i n s the same h i t r a t e i n a study with equal numbers of g u i l t y and innocent s u b j e c t s ( i . e . , chance=50%). A l s o , when c o n s i d e r i n g these r e s u l t s i n a more a p p l i e d frame of r e f e r e n c e , s o c i e t a l v a l u e s must be r e c o n c i l e d with a c t u a l f a l s e negative and f a l s e p o s i t i v e r a t e s . A s o c i e t y based on the premise of "innocent u n t i l proven g u i l t y " f o r example, w i l l most l i k e l y be ready to lower i t s accuracy i n order to reduce the amount of f a l s e p o s i t i v e s . A more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of D e c i s i o n Theory and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n can be found i n Ben Shakhar, et a l . , (1970) and L i e b l i c h , et a l . , (1976). A t h o u g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l versus c l i n i c a l l i e d e t e c t i o n can be found i n Szucko and Kleinmuntz (1981) and Kleinmuntz and Szucko ( i n p r e s s ) . We w i l l now examine some of the f a c t o r s which can account f o r the wide range of r e s u l t s o b tained i n the preceding s t u d i e s . These w i l l i n c l u d e methodological 15 i s s u e s , the use of d i f f e r e n t p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s , the choice of experimental tasks and p r o c e d u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n t e r r o g a t i o n technique. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Issues: Ben Shakhar et a l . (1970) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between s t u d i e s employing " c e r t a i n " or " u n c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n s . In the former, a s u b j e c t ' s involvement i s c e r t a i n , e.g., i t i s known that the person d i d p i c k a c a r d from a deck of s i x cards and the experimenter's task i s to determine which c a r d was taken. In t h i s case, the polygrapher w i l l most l i k e l y look f o r a maximum p h y s i o l o g i c a l response to one of the p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . Using b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n as the experimental s t i m u l u s , these authors succeeded i n c o r r e c t l y matching 77% of t h e i r 27 s u b j e c t s to t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n a " c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n . In an u n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n , the task i s more complex s i n c e the experimenter does not know f o r sure i f the s u b j e c t ' s stimulus i s a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r r o g a t i o n l i s t . T h i s corresponds more c l o s e l y to a f i e l d s i t u a t i o n where the polygrapher attempts to determine whether or not a person i s a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n a given s i t u a t i o n . The polygrapher i s no longer s o l e l y concerned with maximizing c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , he a l s o must attempt to c o n t r o l misses and f a l s e alarms. In the same study, Ben Shakhar et a l . (1970) performed a second experiment where i t was not sure that any given s u b j e c t ' s b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n was i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r r o g a t i o n 1 6 of that p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t . Using two d i f f e r e n t c u t - o f f p o i n t s , the experimenters o b t a i n e d a 100% r a t e coupled with a p r o p o r t i o n of 4:7 f a l s e alarms the f i r s t time, and a 19:26 h i t r a t e coupled with 1:7 f a l s e alarms the second time. C l e a r l y , u n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s present a much more s t r i n g e n t e f f i c i e n c y t e s t f o r p o l y g r a p h i c d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Although studies, l i k e that conducted by Timm (1979) h e l p to deepen our understanding of the p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n , t h e i r use of " a l l g u i l t y " s u b j e c t s d e p r i v e s us of the added knowledge one would gain i f they a l s o i n c l u d e d "innocent" s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r experimental d e s i g n . In mock crime s t u d i e s , t h i s means the i n c l u s i o n of an "innocent" group; with c a r d s t u d i e s , one can i n c l u d e a c e r t a i n p r o p o r t i o n of blank cards i n the deck (e.g., Gustafson and Orne, 1965). T h i s has a l s o been done i n s t u d i e s using code words (e.g., Waid and Orne, 1980), where only some of the s u b j e c t s are asked to memorize the l i s t of words. Such s t u d i e s are more p e r t i n e n t to the f i e l d polygrapher because they h e l p him understand what f a c t o r s might p o s s i b l y a f f e c t the p r o p o r t i o n of f a l s e p o s i t i v e s and f a l s e n egatives that can be obtained i n a given s i t u a t i o n . A l l too o f t e n , l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s of d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n are c r i t i c i z e d because they draw t h e i r s u b j e c t s from the undergraduate p o p u l a t i o n s of v a r i o u s c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Even i f one ignores the s e l e c t i o n b i a s e s that accompany a v o l u n t e e r sample (Kazdin, 1980), one i s 17 s t i l l faced with the problem that an undergraduate p o p u l a t i o n i s probably q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the p o p u l a t i o n with whom the f i e l d p olygraphers work. Although no s t u d i e s have attempted a d i r e c t comparison of such samples, a few re s e a r c h e r s have drawn t h e i r s u b j e c t s from more p e r t i n e n t p o p u l a t i o n s . Kugelmass and L i e b l i c h (1966) obtained h i t r a t e s of 53%, 44%, and 47% when i n t e r r o g a t i n g I s r a e l i policemen. L i e b l i c h et a l . (1976) succeeded i n matching 62% of t h e i r 30 randomly s e l e c t e d p r i s o n e r s to t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Raskin and Hare (1978) were more s u c c e s s f u l with t h e i r sample of 48 p r i s o n e r s , h a l f of whom were diagnosed psychopaths. In a mock crime s i t u a t i o n , these authors c l a s s i f i e d 88% of t h e i r sample c o r r e c t l y ; 4% were i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d and 8% were c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n c l u s i v e . If one excludes these i n c o n c l u s i v e cases, c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was obt a i n e d i n 96% of the cases. The i n f l u e n c e of p o p u l a t i o n c h o i c e i n d e t e c t i o n of deception s t u d i e s i s not a c l e a r one. Although one group of i n v e s t i g a t o r s obtained l e s s than impressive r e s u l t s , another group has obtained r e s u l t s comparable to some of the more s u c c e s s f u l s t u d i e s u s i n g c o l l e g e students. More a t t e n t i o n should be given to t h i s f a c e t of r e s e a r c h . One p o s s i b l e l i n e of resea r c h would be to make tasks more s a l i e n t and c h a l l e n g i n g f o r the s u b j e c t s (Hare and Cox, 1978). Waid et a l . (1978) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of a t t e n t i o n on e l e c t r o d e r m a l d e t e c t i o n of i n f r o m a t i o n . They 18 o p e r a t i o n a l l y measured a t t e n t i o n by t e s t i n g s u b j e c t s ' subsequent memory f o r words they had p r e v i o u s l y over-l e a r n e d . In one of the three experiments conducted by these authors, d e t e c t i o n of c r i t i c a l words and memory f o r c r i t i c a l words were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d (r=.48, p<.05). Post-hoc a n a l y s i s showed that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency f o r remembered words to have a higher e l e c t r o d e r m a l response p r o b a b i l i t y than f o r g o t t e n words (p<.05). C l e a r l y then, an important component of any d e t e c t i o n of deception experiment i s the s a l i e n c y of the task f o r the s u b j e c t . Tasks that are not f u l l y c o g n i t i v e l y processed w i l l undoubtedly be l e s s e a s i l y remembered. M a t e r i a l that i s not w e l l remembered i s not as l i k e l y to produce p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses and hence i s not l i k e l y to lea d to d e t e c t i o n . Another important f a c t o r i n sti m u l u s s a l i e n c y i s the degree of i n t e r e s t that the experimental task induces i n the s u b j e c t . Thus, s t u d i e s where the experimental task i s i n t e r e s t i n g w i l l o f t e n encourage s u b j e c t s to be more i n v o l v e d i n the task and a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e i r degree of m o t i v a t i o n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that s t u d i e s o f f e r i n g a g r e a t e r c h a l l e n g e to the s u b j e c t , or a s u b t s a n t i a l reward f o r beating the t e s t , tend to o b t a i n b e t t e r r e s u l t s (e.g., Lykken, 1960; Davidson, 1968). Gustafson and Orne (1963) induced a s t a t e of high m o t i v a t i o n to deceive the polygrapher i n 18 of t h e i r 36 s u b j e c t s , while the other 18 s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t the experiment was designed to measure t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l 19 r e a c t i o n s to words and numbers. Both groups of s u b j e c t s then s e l e c t e d a card from a deck of f i v e and then l i s t e n e d to the l i s t of a l l the cards while t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses were being monitored. T h i s was done twice, once with numbers and once with words. In the h i g h l y motivated group, 67% and 61% s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s were made on the two t r i a l s ; i n the c o n t r o l group, only 33% and 22% s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s were made. These authors a l s o looked at the p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s u b j e c t ' s p e r c e i v e d r o l e and feedback that the su b j e c t o b t a i n s as to h i s performance i n that r o l e (Gustafson and Orne, 1965a). T h i r t y - t w o s u b j e c t s were t o l d that t h e i r r o l e was to deceive the polygrapher d u r i n g a card t e s t . H a l f of these s u b j e c t s were t o l d a f t e r the f i r s t t r i a l that they had succeeded i n f o o l i n g the polygrapher; the other 18 were t o l d that they had f a i l e d i n t h e i r attempt. On a second t r i a l 18.8% of the f i r s t group were det e c t e d (chance p r o b a b i l t y was 20%) while 93.8% of the second group were d e t e c t e d . Another 32 s u b j e c t s were t o l d that t h e i r task was to be de t e c t e d by the polygrapher. A f t e r the f i r s t t r i a l , 18 s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they had been s u c c e s s f u l in g e t t i n g d e t e c t e d while the remaining 18 s u b j e c t s were informed that they had not succeeded i n g e t t i n g d e t e c t e d by the polygrapher. On the second t r i a l , only 25% of the former group were d e t e c t e d while 87.5% of the l a t t e r group were d e t e c t e d . In other words, s u b j e c t s who p e r c e i v e d t h e i r task as an attempt to deceive the polygrapher were most e a s i l y 20 d e t e c t e d on the second t r i a l when they were informed that they had been det e c t e d on the f i r s t t r i a l . T h i s f i n d i n g g i v e s e m p i r i c a l support to the f i e l d p r a c t i c e of g i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s an accuracy demonstration before proceeding with the p o l y g r a p h i c i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h i s study a l s o shows that s u b j e c t s who t h i n k that t h e i r task i s to be d e t e c t e d by the polygrapher are more e a s i l y d e t e c t e d on a second t r i a l i f they are t o l d a f t e r the f i r s t t r i a l that they f a i l e d i n t h e i r f i r s t attempt to be d e t e c t e d . One f i n a l m e thodological i s s u e i s the q u e s t i o n of c h a r t s c o r i n g . Whereas f i e l d p olygraphers employ a semi-o b j e c t i v e method of a n a l y s i s which i s based on s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a but which a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e s other p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n p l u s the polygrapher's experience, l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s i n v a r i a b l y employ a b l i n d s c o r i n g approach based s o l e l y on p r e - d e f i n e d s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a . Barland and Raskin (1975) compared both approaches in a study where 36 s u b j e c t s were g u i l t y of a mock crime and 36 s u b j e c t s were innocent. These authors concluded that examiners who had access o n l y to the c h a r t s and q u e s t i o n c a t e g o r i e s had roughly the same accuracy r a t e as the examiners who conducted the examination. P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures: Some i n v e s t i a g t o r s have compared the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of d i f f e r e n t p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures in d e t e c t i n g d e c e p t i o n . Kugelmass et a l . (1966) found that although p u l s e r a t e d i d not l e a d to s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e c t i o n i n card t e s t s (where the experimenter attempts to determine which car d the subject 21 p i c k e d from a small deck), g a l v a n i c s k i n response was a s i g n i f i c a n t measure i n that r e s p e c t . These i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l s o found a decreased e f f i c i e n c y f o r d e t e c t i o n when blood pressure was measured along with GSR. Thackray and Orne (1968) looked at a host of p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s : b r e a t h i n g amplitude, s k i n p o t e n t i a l response, s y s t o l i c blood p r e s s u r e , oxygen s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l , f i n g e r volume and pulse volume. They found that only three of these measures, g a l v a n i c s k i n response, s k i n p o t e n t i a l response and f i n g e r volume, c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d b e t t e r than chance. The e l e c t r o d e r m a l measures (GSR, SPR) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e than the measure of f i n g e r volume. Cutrow et a l . (1972) looked at a s i m i l a r l y exhaustive l i s t of p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s : b r e a t h i n g amplitude, b r e a t h i n g c y c l e time, e y e b l i n k r a t e , e y e b l i n k l a t e n c y , f i n g e r - p u l s e volume, heart rate and palmar g a l v a n i c s k i n response. I t i s q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g to note the f a c t that a l l s i x v a r i a b l e s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t o r s ; i t i s l e s s s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d that the best measure was palmar GSR. A s i m i l a r r e s u l t was obtained by Barland and Raskin (1975): s k i n r e s i s t a n c e was the best measure even though they obtained s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s with r e s p i r a t i o n and c a r d i o v a s c u l a r measures. In a comparison of s k i n conductance, r e s p i r a t i o n and c a r d i o v a s c u l a r a c t i v i t y , Podlesny and Raskin (1978) found that only s k i n conductance and r e s p i r a t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t o r s . In an unpublished 22 d i s s e r t a t i o n , Timm (1979) s t a t e s that the l e v e l of d e t e c t i o n f o r a l l four p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s measured ( r e s p i r a t i o n , GSR t o t a l l e n g t h , GSR amplitude, GSR maximum hei g h t ) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than chance l e v e l s . Dawson (1980) obtained good r e s u l t s using e l e c t r o d e r m a l and c a r d i o v a s c u l a r measures, but not with r e s p i r a t i o n . Again, the e l e c t r o d e r m a l measure was found to be s u p e r i o r to the other p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s . Szucko and Kleinmuntz (1981) found that a simple l i n e a r combination of the four i n d i c e s measured in t h e i r study ( g a l v a n i c s k i n response, blood p r e s s u r e , abdominal r e s p i r a t i o n and t h o r a c i c r e s p i r a t i o n ) c o n s i s t e n t l y outperformed the judgements made by s i x q u a l i f i e d and experienced i n t e r p r e t e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i r a n a l y s i s does not permit a comparison of the s a l i e n c e of these d i f f e r e n t measures. Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) looked at three dependent measures (heart r a t e , s k i n r e s i s t a n c e and p u p i l l a r y response) with two types of q u e s t i o n i n g procedures. Whereas only s k i n r e s i s t a n c e and heart r a t e were found to d i s c r i m i n a t e between g u i l t y and innocent s u b j e c t s under a C o n t r o l Question paradigm, a l l three measures were s u c c e s s f u l i n a G u i l t y Knowledge t e s t . Two other independent v a r i a b l e s were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study. F i r s t , i t was found that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s demonstration i n t e r a c t e d with the g u i l t score d e r i v e d from s k i n r e s i s t a n c e scores i n the C o n t r o l Question paradigm so that the more e f f e c t i v e the apparatus appeared, the more 23 innocent s u b j e c t s scored i n the innocent d i r e c t i o n , and the more g u i l t y s u b j e c t s scored i n the g u i l t y d i r e c t i o n . Secondly, heart r a t e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by t h r e a t s of shock i n the C o n t r o l Question paradigm: s u b j e c t s not threatened with shocks tended to score more in the innocent d i r e c t i o n than those threatened with shock. F i n a l l y , Waid et a l . (1981) found that e l e c t r o d e r m a l response, but not c a r d i o v a s c u l a r or r e s p i r a t o r y measures were e f f e c t i v e in s u c c e s s f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between dec e p t i v e and non-deceptive s u b j e c t s . C l e a r l y , the q u e s t i o n of which p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s are the most u s e f u l i n the d e t e c t i o n of deception has yet to be s e t t l e d . C o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s need, to be compared so as to determine whether the d i f f e r e n c e s are s o l e l y a f u n c t i o n of technique or whether the a c t u a l procedures of the s t u d i e s (e.g., r e a l i s m of s t i m u l i , degree of t h r e a t a c t u a l l y experienced) are confounding the i s s u e . U n t i l t h i s i s s u e can be r e s o l v e d , the c h o i c e of p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s to be used w i l l o f t e n be one made on the b a s i s of past experience (e.g., the r e l a t i v e success of e l e c t r o d e r m a l measures) and simple p r a c t i c a l i t y (e.g., heart r a t e and r e s p i r a t i o n versus p u p i l l a r y response). Experimental Tasks: There e x i s t s a v a r i e t y of experimental tasks i n the l a b o r a t o r y study of d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . These i n c l u d e mock crimes, memorized code words, c a r d t e s t s and the use of b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . I n v e s t i g a t o r s o f t e n adopt one of these tasks without s t a t i n g the reasons f o r t h e i r 24 c h o i c e . We w i l l examine some s t u d i e s employing these experimental tasks and attempt to determine whether any method i s more a p p r o p r i a t e than the o t h e r s . A l o t of s t u d i e s use the mock crime as an experimental task. The mock crime has the advantage of ressembling a f i e l d s i t u a t i o n i n that i t r e q u i r e s the examiner to make a d e c i s i o n as to whether or not a given subject has committed a c e r t a i n crime. Mock crimes can be d i f f i c u l t to set up and because of e t h i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s , t h e i r nature i s sometimes so benign that they may loose that touch of r e a l i s m which the experimenter wants to convey to the s u b j e c t . One can even fear that the sub j e c t w i l l p e r c e i v e the task as being so simple that s/he w i l l not take the experiment s e r i o u s l y . Table 1 summarizes the r e s u l t s obtained from d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s employing mock crimes as the experimental task. As one can see, h i t r a t e s tend to be f a i r l y high i n s t u d i e s employing mock crimes as the experimental task. Another popular experimental task i s the card t e s t . A deck of f i v e or s i x cards i s p l a c e d i n f r o n t of the s u b j e c t . The cards e i t h e r have words or numbers w r i t t e n on them. In an " u n c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n , some of the cards may be blank, thereby i n t r o d u c i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of some s u b j e c t s being innocent. Although the c a r d t e s t i s not as c h a l l e n g i n g to the sub j e c t as the mock crime and o f f e r s the examiner l e s s f l e x i b i l i t y i n h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n (very few q u e s t i o n s can be asked), i t does have the advantage of being quick and simple to c a r r y out. The experimenter does 25 TABLE j_ Summary of Accuracy Rates f o r St u d i e s Employing a Mock Crime Study Lykken (1959) Davidson (1968) Barland and Raskin (1975) N 49 48 72 H i t Rate 93.9% 98.0% ( i n c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s ) 53.0% (e x c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s ) 81.0% Raskin and Hare (1978) 48 ( i n c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s ) 88.0% (e x c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s ) 96.0% Timm (1979) B a l l o u n and Holmes (1979) Dawson (1980) 270 34 24 (approx.) 60.0% 73.5% Giesen and R o l l i s o n (1980) Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) Szucko and Kleinmuntz (1981) ( f i r s t c o n d i t i o n ) 75.0% (second c o n d i t i o n ) 83.0% 40 97.5% 1 92 (CQT) 84.0% (GKT) 74.0% 30 ( d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n ) 80.0% TABLE 2 Summary of Accuracy Rates f o r Stud i e s Employing a Card Test Study N H i t : Rate Gustafson and Orne (1963) 18 (motivated) 64 .0% 18 (unmotivated) 28 .0% Gustafson and Orne (1964) 24 (R/I) 69 . 0% 24 (POT) 56 .0% Gustafson and Orne (1965a) 75 64 .0% Gustafson and Orne (1964) 83 (R/I) 67 .0% (POT) 62 .0% Kugelmass and L i e b l i c h (1966) 36 44 .4% Kugelmass, L i e b l i c h & Bergman 27 27 .0% 27 Not have to worry about how w e l l the subject has processed the i n f o r m a t i o n s i n c e l i t t l e e f f o r t i s needed to memorize one word or number on a c a r d . Table 2 summarizes the f i n d i n g s from s t u d i e s employing a card t e s t as an experimental task. As we can see, the h i t r a t e s tend to be lower than those f o r mock crimes. T h i s might be because the p r o b a b i l i t y of making the r i g h t d e c i s i o n by chance i s o f t e n lower i n these s t u d i e s ( u s u a l l y 20%, c f . , 50% i n many mock crime s t u d i e s ) . A v a r i a t i o n of the c a r d t e s t i s the code word t e s t . A l i s t of s i x code words i s given to s u b j e c t s f o r memorization. In an " u n c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n , some s u b j e c t s w i l l not get a l i s t , thereby making them "innocent". Often, to i n c r e a s e examiner b l i n d n e s s , the a c t u a l l i s t of words may vary from subject to s u b j e c t . A t y p i c a l study would have s i x semantic c a t e g o r i e s with s i x words i n each ca t e g o r y . A subject r e c i e v e s a l i s t of s i x words drawn randomly from each of the semantic c a t e g o r i e s . The examiner then i n t e r r o g a t e s the sub j e c t by a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s about the t o t a l sample of 36 words. In t h i s way, the examiner does not know which of the code words are the c r i t i c a l items f o r any given s u b j e c t . Table 3 summarizes some r e s u l t s obtained i n s t u d i e s using memorized words as the experimental s t i m u l i . Even though these s t u d i e s i n c o r p o r a t e the same low chance p r o b a b i l t y of c o r r e c t guessing by the examiner as the c a r d t e s t s t u d i e s , t h e i r h i t r a t e s tend to be h i g h e r . T h i s might be because i t i s e a s i e r to make the memorization of a l i s t of words a 28 c h a l l e n g i n g task, e.g., one can pretend that t h i s task i s p a r t of a s e c r e t agent's m i s s i o n . F i n a l l y , there are s t u d i e s which use a b i o g r a p h i c a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a source of i n t e r r o g a t i o n m a t e r i a l . S u b j e c t s f i l l out a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which c o n t a i n s some b i o g r a p h i c a l items (e.g., parents' f i r s t names, p l a c e of b i r t h , e t c ) which cannot be r e a d i l y known by the i n t e r r o g a t o r . The answers taken from these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are then combined together f i v e at a time to make up the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l . The examiner attempts to match the b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n with the s u b j e c t s . If one wishes to set up an " u n c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n , t h i s can be done by making the s e l e c t i o n of p r o t o c o l answers a random one from a l l of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . In t h i s way, there i s a given p r o b a b i l i t y that a s u b j e c t ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be i n c l u d e d i n h i s own i n t e r r o g a t i o n , but i n some cases, i t w i l l not be part of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l . Table 4 summarizes the r e s u l t s found in some s t u d i e s using b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l s . Although these r e s u l t s tend to be good, t h i s method seems to have l e s s e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y than the p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d methods. B i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n tends to be processed q u i t e deeply and i s not e a s i l y f o r g o t t e n . I t does not r e f e r to s p e c i f i c events, as a r u l e , but r a t h e r to f a c t s which are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of one's l i f e . T h i s i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the t y p i c a l p o l y g r a p h i c s i t u a t i o n where one attempts to determine whether a person was TABLE 3 Summary of Accuracy Rates f o r S t u d i e s Using Memorized Words Study N H i t Rate Waid, Orne, Cook, Orne (1978) 40 (1st study) 77.5% 28 (2nd study) 71.4% 30 (3rd study) 76.7% Waid and Orne (1980) 28 (1st study) 75.0% 30 (2nd study) 80.0% Waid, Orne, Cook, Orne (1978) 44 (no drugs) 84.8% (with meprobamate) 37.5% TABLE 4 Summary of Accuracy Rates f o r S t u d i e s Using B i o g r a o h i c a l Information Study N H i t Rate Lykken (1960) 20 100.0% L i e b l i c h & Kugelmass (1970) 27 (1st study) 77.0% 33 (2nd study) 87.8% L i e b l i c h , Ben Shakhar, & 30 62.0% L i e b l i c h 4 30 Involved i n a s p e c i f i c event or s e r i e s of events. In t h i s sense, t h i s method may be c o n s i d e r e d the l e s s a p p r o p r i a t e method to study d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n i n a l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n . Summarizing then, the mock crime appears to be the most v a l i d approach to the l a b o r a t o r y study of d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . If one wishes to a v o i d the d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a mock crime, the use of memorized code words i s a s o l i d a l t e r n a t i v e . Attempts c o u l d be made, however, to improve the s a l i e n c y of mock crime s t u d i e s by making the crimes more r e a l i s t i c and more d e t a i l e d . To ensure standard content a c r o s s s u b j e c t s , the m a t e r i a l c o u l d be presented i n an automated f a s h i o n . T h i s w i l l be presented i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n l a t e r s e c t i o n s . P r o c e d u r a l P i f f e r e n c e s i n the I n t e r r o g a t i o n Technique: Accuracy Demonstrat ions; Polygraphers not only vary as to the i n t e r r o g a t i o n techniques and experimental task they use, they a l s o employ d i f f e r e n t procedures d u r i n g the a c t u a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . I t i s t h e r e f o r e important to look at p r o c e d u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s and the way they might i n f l u e n c e the outcome of the t e s t . Quite a few polygrapgers give s u b j e c t s an accuracy demonstration to i n c r e a s e the s u b j e c t ' s confidence i n the t e s t . T h i s u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s having the subject p i c k a c a r d from a deck of i d e n t i c a l or marked cards and persuading the s u b j e c t that the polygrapher can determine which c a r d was chosen by l o o k i n g at the s u b j e c t ' s p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses to the polygrapher's q u e s t i o n s . I t i s thought that innocent 31 s u b j e c t s w i l l then r e l a x knowing that they have nothing to f e a r and that c o n v e r s e l y , g u i l t y s u b j e c t s w i l l become i n c r e a s i n g l y anxious. T h i s would i n t u r n i n c r e a s e the t e s t ' s e f f i c i e n c y by lowering the number of f a l s e p o s i t i v e s and f a l s e n e g a t i v e s . Although the c o g n i t i v e consequences of the accuracy demonstration have never been t e s t e d , a few i n v e s t i g a t o r s have attempted to determine whether or not accuracy demonstrations do i n c r e a s e the e f f i c i e n c y of d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n t e s t s . In a study p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , Gustafson and Orne (1965a) showed that s u b j e c t s who were t o l d t h a t t h e i r task was to deceive the experimenter were most e a s i l y d e t e c t e d on a second t r i a l i f they were t o l d that they had f a i l e d to deceive the examiner on the f i r s t t r i a l . On the other hand, s u b j e c t s who were t o l d that t h e i r task was to be d e t e c t e d by the examiner were most e a s i l y d e t e c t e d on the second t r i a l i f they were t o l d a f t e r the f i r s t t r i a l that they had not been d e t e c t e d . T h i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between m o t i v a t i o n a l s t a t e and the nature of the feedback seem to support the premise that the accuracy demonstration i s an important p a r t of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e procedure. Barland and Raskin (1975) manipulated the type of feedback given to s u b j e c t s a f t e r a c a r d t e s t : one group r e c e i v e d feedback s t a t i n g that the l i e on the c a r d t e s t was d e t e c t e d ; a second group were t o l d that no l i e had been d e t e c t e d ; a t h i r d group r e c e i v e d no c a r d t e s t and hence, no feedback. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s found that the 32 treatment had no apparent e f f e c t s on outcome, but they c a u t i o n t hat t h i s should not be i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the s u b j e c t ' s c o n f i d e n c e i n the t e s t i s not an important f a c t o r i n t e s t r e s u l t s . Timm (1979) d i d a s i m i l a r m a nipulation; a l l s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the card t e s t though. One t h i r d of the su b j e c t s were t o l d that they had s u c c e s s f u l l y d e ceived the examiner, another t h i r d were t o l d that they had f a i l e d to deceive him and a f i n a l t h i r d of the s u b j e c t s were not given any feedback. The i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d not o b t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t from t h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n . F i n a l l y , Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) l e d s u b j e c t s to b e l i e v e that they had been d e t e c t e d i n e i t h e r none, one, two or three t r i a l s of an accuracy demonstration. T h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n d i d not y i e l d c l e a r r e s u l t s with the G u i l t y Knowledge technique. With the C o n t r o l Question technique, however, i t was found that d e t e c t a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s i n c r e a s e d concommitantly with l e v e l of . demonstrated ef f e c t i v e n e s s . Only one p a t t e r n seems to emerge: the accuracy demonstration seem to have l e s s e f f e c t on the G u i l t y Knowledge t e s t than on other techniques. Whether t h i s i s due to the nature of the t e s t i t s e l f , or rather to the context of the s t u d i e s (analog versus f i e l d ) remains to be determined. One i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e that has yet to be adressed i s the e f f e c t of v e r i d i c a l feedback: g i v i n g s u b j e c t s a c t u a l feedback on t h e i r performance on a warm-up t e s t . O b v i o u s l y , f i e l d p olygraphers might object to using 33 t h i s procedure. The i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from such a study i n a l a b o r a t o r y context, however, would undoubtedly h e l p to e x p l a i n the r o l e , i f any, of accuracy demonstrations and feedback. Role of Threat: In order to approximate the t h r e a t of p u n i t i v e consequences that are inherent to f i e l d ' t e s t s , some i n v e s t i g a t o r s have used shocks and/or t h r e a t s of shock i n response to d e t e c t e d l i e s , e.g., Lykken (1959), Waid and Orne (1980). Only one study has looked at the e f f e c t s of such t h r e a t s . Bradley and J a n i s s e (1981) concluded that t h r e a t of punishment d i d not a f f e c t d e t e c t i o n r e s u l t s with the C o n t r o l Question or G u i l t y Knowledge t e s t s . They d i d f i n d that t h r e a t s a f f e c t e d heart r a t e i n such a manner as to i n c r e a s e g u i l t scores r e g a r d l e s s of whether the s u b j e c t s were innocent or g u i l t y . V e r b a l Responses: Polygraphers d i f f e r i n the response they r e q u i r e t h e i r examinees to make du r i n g a p o l y g r a p h i c i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Since a good p r o p o r t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l polygraphers are i n f a c t l o o k i n g f o r a " l i e response" to the c r i t i c a l and c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n s , they normally have s u b j e c t s respond "no" to t h e i r q u e s t i o n s . Users of the G u i l t y Knowledge technique aren't i n t e r e s t e d i n a " l i e response" per se, but r a t h e r i n d e t e c t i n g the r e c o g n i t i o n of g u i l t y knowledge. T h e r e f o r e , they have more l a t i t u d e i n t h i s matter: some do not r e q u i r e a v e r b a l response, others r e q u i r e a simple "no" or shake of the head, while others ask the person to completely answer the q u e s t i o n i n the 34 n e g a t i v e , e.g., "No, i t wasn't a .45 c a l i b e r r e v o l v e r . " Only two s t u d i e s have adressed t h i s q u e s t i o n of the r o l e of v e r b a l responses. Gustafson and Orne (1965) had s u b j e c t s respond in one of three modes. The f i r s t group remained mute, the second v o i c e d " c o n v i n c i n g 'no's" and the t h i r d group was i n s t r u c t e d to generate f r e e a s s o c i a t i o n s . No d i f f e r e n c e was found between the R e l e v a n t - I r r e l e v a n t and Peak-of-Tension techniques i n t h i s study. The authors used a c a r d t e s t as the experimental task. They found that d e t e c t i o n was highest f o r the "no" group (76%) than fo r the mute group (50%) and the f r e e a s s o c i a t i o n group (30%). The authors recognized however that the f r e e a s s o c i a t i o n group d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a s o l i d c o n t r o l group as t h i s task c o u l d have been d i s t r a c t i n g , thereby weakening the power of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Kugelmass et a l . (1967) adressed t h i s i s s u e i n a more d i r e c t manner. In a G u i l t y Knowledge card t e s t , they had one group of s u b j e c t s answer "no" to every a l t e r n a t i v e , thereby g e n e r a t i n g one l i e per s u b j e c t . S u b j e c t s i n the second group answered "yes" to every a l t e r n a t i v e , thereby t e l l i n g four l i e s . Whereas the h i t r a t e f o r both c o n d i t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t , the d i f f e r e n c e i n h i t r a t e s between the two c o n d i t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Hence, one i s tempted to q u e s t i o n the r o l e of " l y i n g " i n polygraphy, unless one wants to p o s t u l a t e that the absence of a s p e c i f i c l i e response to only one a l t e r n a t i v e i n the "yes" group l e d to a s i g n i f i c a n t h i t r a t e . In a p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d study, Waid et a l . (1978) 35 showed that remembered words had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher p r o b a b i l i t y of e l e c t r o d e r m a l response than f o r g o t t e n words. Deceptive s u b j e c t s who were m i s c l a s s i f i e d showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s r e c a l l than those who were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . The authors conclude that i t i s not only important to make sure that s u b j e c t s have s u f f i c i e n t l y processed the experimental s t i m u l i , but one should a l s o attempt to enhance the s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n by r e q u i r i n g the s u b j e c t to repeat the q u e s t i o n s and answer them aloud. Repeated Examinations: Some polygraphers p r e f e r to give more than.one i n t e r r o g a t i o n , b e l i e v i n g that t h i s w i l l l e a d to g r e a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s . B a l l o u n and Holmes (1979) found, however, that on a second i n t e r r o g a t i o n , the d i f f e r e n c e i n d e t e c t i o n scores between g u i l t y and innocent s u b j e c t s was g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d . I f one c o n s i d e r s the d e t e c t i o n of deception as a paradigm where one t e s t s the s a l i e n c y of a given item of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t , then r e s u l t s l i k e the one j u s t c i t e d can e a s i l y be e x p l a i n e d by the phenomenon of h a b i t u a t i o n . As a s u b j e c t i s t e s t e d more than once, h i s p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n s tend to h a b i t u a t e . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to f i n d out i f a s i m i l a r phenomenon occurs d u r i n g a long i n t e r r o g a t i o n , even i f no items are repeated. One c o u l d t h e r e f o r e engage in r e s e a r c h to determine the optimum le n g t h of an i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l . I n d i v i d u a l and Group I n t e r r o g a t i o n : Waid and Orne (1980) i n t e r r o g a t e d some of t h e i r s u b j e c t s i n groups 36 composed of three to seven s u b j e c t s . Although they report no d i f f e r e n c e i n d e t e c t i o n r a t e s between t h i s group and a group of s u b j e c t s i n t e r r o g a t e d on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , there does not seem to be a need, e i t h e r i n f i e l d p r a c t i c e or i n l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h , to forsake the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n f o r group i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Summarizing, then, the accuracy demonstration appears to be more u s e f u l i n a G u i l t y Person co n t e x t , than in a G u i l t y Knowledge one. T hreats have not been found to enhance r e s u l t s i n any way, and there appears to be no advantage to g i v i n g the subject more than one i n t e r r o g a t i o n . There does appear to be a need to enhance the s u b j e c t ' s r e t e n t i o n of the experimental s t i m u l i and to maintain h i s a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h i s can be done by having the s u b j e c t repeat the q u e s t i o n s before answering them. Having looked at ways of enhancing r e s u l t s obtained i n d e t e c t i o n of deception s t u d i e s , we w i l l now focus on some f a c t o r s which might p o s s i b l y have d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s on h i t r a t e s . F i r s t , we w i l l look at some p o s s i b l e p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s which may be a s s o c i a t e d with d e t e c t a b i l i t y . Afterwards, we w i l l focus on ways people v o l u n t a r i l y t r y to i n f l u e n c e the outcome of a d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n t e s t . P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s : . S t u d i e s have been conducted i n order to determine which p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , i f any, might i n f l u e n c e the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Waid and Orne (1980) demonstrated 37 that d e c e p t i o n by e l e c t r o d e r m a l l y s t a b i l e i n d i v i d u a l s was d e t e c t e d l e s s f r e q u e n t l y than that by e l e c t r o d e r m a l l y l a b i l e i n d i v i d u a l s . They a l s o found that t r u t h f u l l a b i l e i n d i v i d u a l s were f a l s e l y d e t e c t e d more of t e n than t r u t h f u l s t a b i l e i n d i v i d u a l s . Giesen and R o l l i s o n (1980) found that s u b j e c t s with high s e l f - r e p o r t e d t r a i t a n x i e t y showed gr e a t e r r e s p o n s i v i t y than s u b j e c t s with low s e l f - r e p o r t e d t r a i t a n x i e t y . T h i s d i d not a f f e c t the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s u b j e c t s i n t o d e c e p t i v e and non-deceptive groups because i n f o r m a t i o n from i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s , not i n f o r m a t i o n averaged a c r o s s s u b j e c t s , was used in the decision-making pro c e s s . T h i s e f f e c t thus appears to be minimized when in f o r m a t i o n i s used w i t h i n a s u b j e c t r a t h e r than ac r o s s s u b j e c t s . Kugelmass and L i e b l i c h (1966) su b j e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s to three d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s t r e s s p r i o r to a l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t . The policemen undergoing the t e s t s were t o l d one of three t h i n g s : that the purpose of the t e s t was to c a l i b r a t e the equipment; that the purpose of the t e s t was to see i f they were e a s i l y d e t e c t a b l e ; or that the purpose of the t e s t was to determine whether they were good policemen with a t t r i b u t e s necessary f o r advancement. T h e i r r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s f o r pulse r a t e . They a l s o found that the e l e c t r o d e r m a l d e t e c t i o n r e s u l t s under s t r e s s were s i m i l a r to those in l e s s s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s . Waid, Orne and Wilson (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s 38 of l e v e l of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , as measured by the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory, on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . A f t e r s u b j e c t s had completed the experiment, they were asked to f i l l out the s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e of the CPI, along with other d e b r i e f i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . On both G u i l t y Knowledge and G u i l t y Person t e s t s , d e c e p t i v e s u b j e c t s who weren't d e t e c t e d scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s on the s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e than those who were d e t e c t e d . S i m i l a r l y , among innocent s u b j e c t s , the more h i g h l y s o c i a l i z e d i n d i v i d u a l s were more responsive e l e c t r o d e r m a l l y throughout the t e s t . Raskin and Hare (1978) conducted a study with p r i s o n inmates, h a l f of whom were diagnosed psychopaths. A C o n t r o l Question i n t e r r o g a t i o n format was used. E l e c t r o d e r m a l , r e s p i r a t o r y and c a r d i o v a s c u l a r measures were e v a l u a t e d using both q u a n t i t a t i v e and f i e l d s c o r i n g techniques. Psychopaths were as e a s i l y d e t e c t e d as non-psychopaths . S i m i l a r l y , B a l l o u n and Holmes (1979) found that s u b j e c t s who scored high on s c a l e 5 (Pd) of the MMPI (mean t score=7l) were d e t e c t e d j u s t as e a s i l y f o l l o w i n g an i n -l a b o r a t o r y c h e a t i n g i n c i d e n t as were s u b j e c t s who scored low on t h i s same s c a l e (mean t score=40). One might wonder, though, i f these s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g "high" on the Pd s c a l e a c t u a l l y represent as s t a t i s c a l l y a d e v i a n t group as Raskin and Hare's (1978) s u b j e c t s d i d . I t seems apparent that much more resea r c h needs to be done on the p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e s of p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s 39 on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Few s t u d i e s have been done i n t h i s regard, and fewer r e p l i c a t i o n s have been attempted. C l e a r l y , t h i s s t i l l r e p r e s e n t s unchartered t e r r i t o r y f o r p o l y g r a p h e r s . Attempts to Beat the Polygraph; I t i s only n a t u r a l to expect people to search f o r ways to "beat" a l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t . I n d i v i d u a l s may do t h i s i n an attempt to d i s g u i s e t h e i r g u i l t or simply as a way of e n s u r i n g t h e i r e x o n e r a t i o n i f they are innocent. S u r p r i s i n g l y though, l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been devoted to t h i s t o p i c . Lykken (i960) i n s t r u c t e d h i s s u b j e c t s on ways to produce e l e c t r o d e r m a l responses. He d i d not i n s t r u c t them, however, on ways to reduce or e l i m i n a t e responses. In t h i s study he used b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n h i s q u e s t i o n n i n g of s u b j e c t s . He succeeded in c o r r e c t l y matching 100% of the s u b j e c t s to t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . One might ask i f such a good h i t r a t e would have been p o s s i b l e i f Lykken had not taught h i s s u b j e c t s how to f a b r i c a t e responses. In doing t h i s , he l i m i t e d the range of ways people might attempt to f o o l the examiner. Dawson (1980) r e c r u i t e d 24 S t a n i s l a v s k y - t r a i n e d a c t o r s . H a lf of the s u b j e c t s commited a mock t h e f t , the other h a l f d i d n ' t . Dawson o f f e r e d a $5.00 reward f o r a l l s u b j e c t s that appeared innocent. The attempts by the g u i l t y s u b j e c t s to appear innocent were t o t a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e ; depending on the response s t y l e r e q u i r e d of the s u b j e c t (immediate versus d e l a y e d ) , h i t r a t e s were 75% 40 and 83%. Germann (1961) s e l e c t e d f i v e s u b j e c t s on the b a s i s of hypnotic deep trance c a p a b i l i t y . He found that d e s p i t e a post- h y p n o t i c suggestion of amnesia, s u b j e c t s were de t e c t e d 8 times out of 15 on a c a r d t e s t , the other 7 t r i a l s having i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s . Weinstein et a l . (1970) a l s o attempted to i n f l u e n c e the outcome of a d e t e c t i o n of deception t e s t u s ing hypnosis. Six students who were known to be e a s i l y hypnotized were used i n t h i s study. Three of these students committed a mock crime. These three g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were hypnotized to induce amnesia while the three innocent s u b j e c t s were hypnotized to induce g u i l t (by t e l l i n g them the d e t a i l s of the c r i m e ) . Innocent s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as g u i l t y and g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d i n c o n c l u s i v e . T h i s study, l i k e the one p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d i s very weak m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r these r e s u l t s c o u l d be found i n the G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm, where the innocent s u b j e c t s , now posses s i n g the g u i l t y i n f o r m a t i o n , would t h e r e f o r e be j u s t as e a s i l y d e t e c t e d as the g u i l t y s u b j e c t s . Timm (1979) assessed the e f f e c t s of placebo e x p e c t a t i o n s on 270 s u b j e c t s . A l l s u b j e c t s committed a mock murder (shooting a loaded p e l l e t gun at the p i c t u r e of the v i c t i m ) and were questionned using the G u i l t y Knowledge technique. A l l s u b j e c t s were given placebo p i l l s p r i o r to the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . One group was t o l d t h a t the 41 p i l l that they r e c e i v e d contained a t r a n q u i l i z i n g agent which would lower t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses. Another group was t o l d that the p i l l c o n t a i n e d an a d r e n e r g i c substance that would i n c r e a s e t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i v i t y . The t h i r d group was not t o l d anything about the placebo p i l l that they i n g e s t e d . The author d i d not f i n d any e f f e c t a s s o c i a t e d with t h i s placebo m a n i p u l a t i o n . Waid et a l . (1981) found that 400 mg meprobamate taken o r a l l y 30 minutes p r i o r to an i n t e r r o g a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced the accuracy of p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e c t i o n of dec e p t i o n . F o r t y - f o u r s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s experiment. One group of 11 s u b j e c t s served as the innocent group. The other 33 s u b j e c t s memorized a l i s t of s i x code words. Eleven of these s u b j e c t s were given the 400 mg meprobamate and t o l d that i t would help them r e l a x d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n Another eleven s u b j e c t s were given a placebo p i l l but were given the same e x p e c t a t i o n s fo r t h e i r p i l l s as the meprobamate group. F i n a l l y , the remaining 11 g u i l t y s u b j e c t s were not given anything. The examiner, who was b l i n d to experimental c o n d i t i o n s , attempted to rate s u b j e c t s on whether or not they had ing e s t e d the meprobamate p i l l s . T h i s attempt was not s u c c e s s f u l : a l l s u b j e c t s i n the meprobamate group were judged as not having i n g e s t e d a p i l l , while 2, 5, and 3 of the innocent, no p i l l and placebo groups were judged as having i n g e s t e d the meprobamate. A l l 11 innocent s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d . Nine and e i g h t out of 11 s u b j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d i n the no p i l l and 42 placebo groups, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Only 3 out of 11 s u b j e c t s i n the meprobamate group were c l a s s i f i e d g u i l t y . T h i s study suggests that doses of t r a n q u i 1 i z i n g agents which are not apparent b e h a v i o r a l l y ( i . e . , the examiner cannot t e l l that the i n d i v i d u a l has taken some type of drug) can have a s t r o n g enough e f f e c t to i n f l u e n c e the outcome of a l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t . These f i n d i n g s are t r u l y alarming i n t h a t , i f they are supported by r e p l i c a t i o n , then c o n v e n t i o n a l l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t s c o u l d no longer be c a r r i e d out without f i r s t a s k i n g the i n d i v i d u a l to take a blood t e s t . Aims of t h i s Study: The purpose of t h i s study i s to attempt a " c o n s t r u c t i v e " r e p l i c a t i o n (Lykken, 1968) of the Waid et a l . (1981) study. The f i r s t aim i s to i n c o r p o r a t e some changes to the b a s i c design of t r a d i t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r y d e t e c t i o n of deception s t u d i e s . These changes are i n s p i r e d by the preceding review of the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t l y , a crime videotape, f i l m e d from the p e r p e t r a t o r ' s p o i n t of view, w i l l serve as the crime s t i m u l u s . I t i s hoped that t h i s type of stimulus w i l l appear more r e a l i s t i c to s u b j e c t s , and that consequently they w i l l become more absorbed in t h e i r task and process more in f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to the crime. Secondly, we w i l l attempt to v a l i d a t e the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l . We plan to do t h i s i n order to demonstrate that the c r i t i c a l items in the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l are not t r a n s p a r e n t to innocent s u b j e c t s , but are n e v e r t h e l e s s w e l l remembered by g u i l t y s u b j e c t s . 43 The second aim of t h i s study i s to attempt the r e p l i c a t i o n of the Waid et a l . (1981) study, but using d i f f e r e n t drugs. We f e e l t h a t more can be l e a r n e d from t h i s r e p l i c a t i o n i f a d i f f e r e n t a n x i o l y t i c medication and a s t i m u l a n t drug are used. In t h i s way, one may determine i f the e f f e c t s found by Waid et a l . are s p e c i f i c to the drug they used (meprobamate), to the c l a s s of drug they used ( a n x i o l y t i c s ) or i s simply a general drug e f f e c t ( i . e . , any attempt to a l t e r the e x i s t i n g a r o u s a l s t a t e of the autonomic nervous system can produce d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s f o r d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n ) . We were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n a c l o s e l y r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n : If an a n x i o l y t i c medication reduces only the g u i l t y p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e s , , w i l l a s t i m u l a t i n g medication a l s o have such a s e l e c t i v e e f f e c t , or w i l l i t s a c t i o n be more g e n e r a l ? " In order to b e t t e r understand what one can expect from the use of these medications, a short review of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e on our two chosen medications (diazepam and methylphenidate) f o l l o w s . S t u d i e s d e s c r i b i n g drug metabolism and e f f e c t s are c i t e d . Normal a d u l t drug doses are a l s o quoted. Review of Drug L i t e r a t u r e : Waid et a l . (1981) r e p o r t that s u b j e c t s who had i n g e s t e d meprobamate d i d not d i f f e r i n mean e l e c t r o d e r m a l response amplitude from other s u b j e c t s , but they d i d show a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency to g i v e s m a l l e r EDRs as the t e s t p r o gressed. These s u b j e c t s t h e r e f o r e showed a decrease only i n the EDRs a s s o c i a t e d with the c r i t i c a l items i n the 44 i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Although these authors attempted to d i s c r i m i n a t e etween innocent and g u i l t y s u b j e c t s using r e s p i r a t o r y and c a r d i o v a s c u l a r measures, they do not r e p o r t any analyses on p o s s i b l e drug e f f e c t s with these measures. In order to determine whether the r e s u l t s obtained by these authors are to be expected, we w i l l examine the drug l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t we w i l l look at s t u d i e s that have i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of diazepam. Diazepam, l i k e meprobamate, i s an a n x i o l y t i c medication. Nowadays, i t i s p r e s c r i b e d more o f t e n than meprobamate, in part because of i t s q u i c k e r a c t i o n . Appleton and Davis (1980) s t a t e that diazepam was r e p o r t e d b e t t e r than placebo in 89% (18) of s t u d i e s reviewing i t s e f f i c a c y as an a n x i o l y t i c agent, b e t t e r than b a r b i t u r a t e s i n 80% (5) of s t u d i e s and b e t t e r than meprobamate in 50% (2) of s t u d i e s . A l s o there i s a black market f o r t h i s drug, so that i t i s widely a v a i l a b l e to the general p o p u l a t i o n . I t t h e r e f o r e becomes a prime candidate f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who might want to i n g e s t a t r a n q u i l i z i n g drug p r i o r to a l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t . Dose l e v e l s : M a r j e r r i s o n et a l . (1973) t e s t e d 26 s u b j e c t s who had i n g e s t e d 10 mg diazepam and found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s i n t h e i r EEGs. D a n i e l s e n et a l . (1975) found s i g n i f i c a n t changes in heart r a t e a f t e r a d m i n i s t e r i n g 10 mg diazepam to 9 s u b j e c t s . Holder et a l . (1975) found s i g n i f i c a n t changes in s u b j e c t s ' EEGs a f t e r these s u b j e c t s had i n g e s t e d 10 mg diazepam. G a i l l a r d and Truman (1976) a l s o used 10 mg diazepam to study the 45 e f f e c t s of t h i s drug on E E C From these s t u d i e s , i t seems that an o r a l dose of 10 mg diazpeam should be s u f f i c i e n t to produce the s u b t l e e f f e c t that i s d e s i r e d i n t h i s study. Levinsen (1981) g i v e s the d a i l y dose range f o r diazepam as 5-60 mg and f o r meprobamate as 800-3200 mg. S i m i l a r l y , Appleton (1982) g i v e s a d a i l y dose f o r diazepam of 4-40 mg and f o r meprobamate of 800-3200 mg. Thus, by choosing an o r a l dose of 10 mg we should o b t a i n a drug e f f e c t as strong as that o b tained by Waid et a l . (1981) s i n c e they used 400 mg meprobamate, which i s l e s s than the minimum d a i l y dose f o r t h i s drug. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no e q u i v a l e n c y t a b l e s e x i s t f o r these drugs; i t i s t h e r e f o r e impossible to compare a p r i o r i a dose of 10 mg diazepam to a dose of 400 mg meprobamate. We can only assure o u r s e l v e s of the f a c t that our dose i s as strong as the one Waid et a l . used. We do not know how much stronger i t i s though. Metabolism: M a r j e r r i s o n et a l . (1973) t e s t e d 26 s u b j e c t s at 1,2, 4, and 6 hours p o s t - i n g e s t i o n of 10 mg diazepam. EEG e f f e c t s peaked at one hour post i n g e s t i o n . G r e e n b l a t t and Shader (1964) s t a t e that diazepam given o r a l l y or i n t r a v e n o u s l y peaks w i t h i n two hours. Holder et a l . (1975) found s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n t h e i r s u b j e c t s ' EEGs one hour a f t e r the i n g e s t i o n of 10 mg diazepam. G a i l l a r d and Trumbo (1976) c o l l e c t e d EEG data on 13 s u b j e c t s f o r two hours a f t e r they had i n g e s t e d 10 mg diazepam. These authors found that most s u b j e c t s peaked w i t h i n two hours of the o r a l i n g e s t i o n . W r e t l i n d et a l . 46 (1977) gave 7 su b j e c t s 5 mg diazepam and found that peak serum c o n c e n t r a t i o n was a t t a i n e d w i t h i n 45 minutes of o r a l i n g e s t i o n . H i l l e s t a d and Hansen found that peak serum c o n c e n t r a t i o n occured 30 minutes a f t e r o r a l i n g e s t i o n of 20 mg diazepam i n healthy s u b j e c t s . These s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e that a p o s t - i n g e s t i o n w a i t i n g p e r i o d of one hour should be s u f f i c i e n t to allow the 10 mg o r a l dose of diazepam to s t a r t having an e f f e c t on our s u b j e c t s . Drug E f f e c t s on the Autonomic Nervous System: Masuda and Bakker (1966) found that diazepam lowered mathematical performance and i n c r e a s e d s k i n r e s i s t a n c e ( i . e ., lowered s k i n conductance). Clemens and S e l e s n i c k (1967) showed a s t r e s s o r f i l m twice to 36 s u b j e c t s . During the week s e p a r a t i n g the f i r s t and second showing of the f i l m , one h a l f of the s u b j e c t s took 5 mg diazepam four times a day while the other h a l f were given placebo. During the second showing of the s t r e s s o r f i l m , s u b j e c t s who had been t a k i n g the diazepam f o r one week showed marked ad a p t a t i o n i n t h e i r s k i n conductance and r e s p i r a t i o n . G r e e n b l a t t and Shader (1974) s t a t e that even l a r g e doses of diazepam only have benign d e p r e s s i v e e f f e c t s on c i r c u l a t i o n and r e s p i r a t i o n . Danielsen et a l . (1975) found an i n c r e a s e i n heart r a t e i n s u b j e c t s who had taken 10 or 20 mg diazepam. They found that 10 mg i n c r e a s e d GSR amplitude but 20 mg decreased GSR amplitude. Levinsen (1981) s t a t e s that the major e f f e c t s of diazepam occur at the s u b c o r t i c a l l e v e l , mostly w i t h i n the l i m b i c system. 47 If one looks at t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , diazepam does not seem to have any s p e c i f i c e f f e c t on the autonomic nervous system. The same i s true of meprobamate (Appleton and Davis, 1980). C l e a r l y then, i f diazepam i s to have an e f f e c t on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n , t h i s e f f e c t w i l l be mediated c e n t r a l l y . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r Waid et a l . ' s f i n d i n g s i s that the meprobamate reduced f e a r of d e t e c t i o n and thus reduced d e t e c t a b i l i t y . Thus, an a n x i o l y t i c medication, even though i t has no d i r e c t e f f e c t on • the autonomic nervous system, c o u l d reduce e l e c t r o d e r m a l d e t e c t a b i l i t y by a c t i n g on some c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s . Nervous system. We w i l l now look at s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of methylphenidate. Because methylphenidate i s used more o f t e n c l i n i c a l l y with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n than with a d u l t s , i t f o l l o w s that these s t u d i e s should be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a r e . U n t i l more i s known about the h y p e r k i n e t i c syndrome, we cannot assume that what i s true f o r these c h i l d r e n i s n e c e s s a r i l y true f o r a d u l t s . Dose L e v e l s : Goodman and Gilman (1975) s t a t e that the normal a d u l t dose i s 10 mg two to three times per day. A more gen e r a l r u l e of thumb that a p p l i e s to both a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n i s 0.3mg/kg of body weight (Aman and Werry, 1975). Basing o u r s e l v e s on these two approaches, an o r a l dose of 20 mg methylphenidate should be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the purpose of t h i s study. Metabolism: S a t t e r f i e l d and Dawson (1971) waited one hour a f t e r i n g e s t i o n of e i t h e r methylphenidate or d-48 amphetamine before t e s t i n g s u b j e c t s . Aman and Werry (1975) obt a i n e d r e s u l t s which suggest that methylphenidate takes e f f e c t w i t h i n 0.75 to 1.0 hours a f t e r o r a l i n g e s t i o n . Zahn et a l . (1975) t e s t e d t h e i r 54 s u b j e c t s one to three hours a f t e r o r a l i n g e s t i o n of methylphenidate and found s i g n i f i c a n t p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s . From the few s t u d i e s reviewed, a one-hour w a i t i n g p e r i o d p o s t - i n g e s t i o n would seem to be s u f f i c i e n t i n order to observe methylphenidate e f f e c t s i n s u b j e c t s . T h i s i s a l s o a convenient w a i t i n g p e r i o d s i n c e i t c o i n c i d e s with that needed f o r diazepam and thus helps to ensure e q u a l i t y of treatment among groups. . Drug E J f e c t s on the Autonomic Nervous System: Cohen et a l . (1971) found that mehtylphenidate i n c r e a s e d b a s a l s k i n conductance l e v e l s and heart r a t e during r e l a x a t i o n , and i n c r e a s e d basal s k i n conductance duri n g p e r i o d s of s t i m u l a t i u n with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . S a t t e r f i e l d and Dawson (1971) found that methylphenidate i n c r e a s e d s k i n conductance l e v e l and n o n - s p e c i f i c s k i n conductance responses i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Spring et a l . (1974) compared h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n on methylphenidate with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n who were having t h e i r methylphenidate w i t h h e l d . He found that methylphenidate i n c r e a s e d the frequency of n o n - s p e c i f i c e l e c t r o d e r m a l responses and a l s o the number of t r i a l s r e q u i r e d to a t t a i n h a b i t u a t i o n . Aman and Werry (1975) concluded that with c h i l d r e n aged 73-135 months, d a i l y p h y s i o l o g i c a l s t r e s s e s l i k e d i g e s t i o n produced a gr e a t e r e f f e c t on heart r a t e and blood pressure 49 than d i d doses (0.3mg/kg of body weight) of methylphenidate. B a l l a r d et a l . (1975) found with the 46 c h i l d r e n they s t u d i e d that methylphenidate therapy s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d heart rate and blood p r e s s u r e . B u t t e r and L a p i e r r e (1975) found no d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean heart rate between methylphenidate and placebo t r e a t e d groups d u r i n g a ten minute r e l a x a t i o n p e r i o d . They d i d f i n d t h a t while the c h i l d r e n were a t t e n d i n g to v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i , those r e c e i v i n g methylphenidate had a decreased heart r a t e ( i . e . , enahanced r e c e p t i o n and p r o c e s s i n g of the s t i m u l i ) . Goodman and Gilman (1975) s t a t e that the e f f e c t of methylphenidate i s more mental than motoric. Greenberg and Y e l l i n (1975) compared the e f f e c t s of imipramine and methylphenidate on 47 c h i l d r e n . They d i d not f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n heart r a t e or blood pressure a s s o c i a t e d with the methylphenidate, though they d i d f i n d t h a t c h i l d r e n on methylphenidate tended to l o s e weight. Zahn et a l . (1975) found that both methylphenidate and d-amphetamine i n c r e a s e d s k i n conductance l e v e l s and reduced e l e c t r o d e r m a l r e s p o n s i v i t y i n 54 c h i l d r e n . Zahn et a l . (1980) waited 40 minutes a f t e r givng 6-12 year o l d boys 0.5 mg d-amphetamine/kg of body weight. They found that heart rate i n c r e a s e d and s k i n temperature ( i . e . , p e r i p h e r a l v a s o c o n s t r i c t i o n ) decreased. The c h i l d r e n d i d not show an i n c r e a s e i n s k i n conductance l e v e l s or i n frequency of spontaneous s k i n conductance responses. 50 Although there are more s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the autonomic e f f e c t s of methylphenidate than there are f o r diazepam, there s t i l l a r e n't any c l e a r r e s u l t s . One can only say that i f methylphenidate does i n f l u e n c e the outcome of a d e t e c t i o n of decept i o n t e s t , there are b e t t e r chances that t h i s e f f e c t i s mediated through the autonomic nervous system than there might be i f such an e f f e c t i s found f o r diazepam. I t i s t h e r e f o r e important that these p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s be measured over the course of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . A f t e r reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , i t seems q u i t e p l a u s i b l e to assume that these drugs are more l i k e l y to a f f e c t d e t e c t i o n by a c t i n g on some c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s . In other words, they might i n c r e a s e or decrease fear of d e t e c t i o n , a n x i e t y , g u i l t or any other c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e which might p l a y a r o l e i n d e t e c t i o n t a s k s . 51 CHAPTER 2 52 METHOD  Overview In order to a t t a i n the s p e c i f i c goals of t h i s study, two separate phases were planned. The f i r s t phase was devoted to the p r e p a r a t i o n of a crime videotape and a v a l i d a t e d G u i l t y Knowledge-type i n t e r r o g a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The second phase comprised the a c t u a l t e s t i n g of t h i s v a l i d a t e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e on innocent s u b j e c t s , as w e l l as on g u i l t y s u b j e c t s who had ingested e i t h e r diazepam, placebo or methylphenidate. In the f i r s t phase, two videotapes were prepared: one c o n t a i n e d g u i l t y stimulus m a t e r i a l ( d e p i c t i o n of a c r i m e ) ; the other, s i m i l a r but n o n - g u i l t y s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l . The i n v e s t i g a t o r s generated a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to the m a t e r i a l i n the crime v i d e o t a p e . These were then v a l i d a t e d on two samples of s u b j e c t s . The ten best items were then assembled to form the G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l that was used i n Phase 2. During the second phase of the study, s i x t y male s u b j e c t s underwent a G u i l t y Knowledge t e s t f o r d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . F i f t e e n of these s u b j e c t s had seen the c o n t r o l videotape, not the crime v i d e o t a p e . Of the f o r t y -f i v e s u b j e c t s who had seen the crime videotape, f i f t e e n i n g ested 10 mg of diazepam one hour before the i n t e r r o g a t i o n , f i f t e e n had i n g e s t e d 20 mg of methylphenidate and the remaining f i f t e e n i n g e s t e d a placebo c a p s u l e . A l l s u b j e c t s were b l i n d to the content of t h e i r i n g e s t e d capsule and the experimenter d i d not know 53 which s u b j e c t s had seen e i t h e r of the videotapes, or which s u b j e c t s had indeed i n g e s t e d a c a p s u l e . The c h a r t s obtained from these i n t e r r o g a t i o n s were then scored b l i n d l y as to experimental c o n d i t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g a n a l y s i s was used to assess the b e n e f i t s of using a v a l i d a t e d G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a crime videotape i n s t u d i e s of t h i s type. The a n a l y s i s was a l s o used to t e s t the e f f e c t s of innocence versus g u i l t and the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s that the drugs might have on d e t e c t i o n h i t r a t e . P r e l i m i n a r y work: Phase J_ A videotape d e p i c t i n g the t h e f t of s e v e r a l items from a bachelor apartment was f i l m e d from the p e r p e t r a t o r ' s p o i n t of view. In other words, a person viewing the videotape would see t h i n g s e x a c t l y as the ?????????sees them while committing the crime. The f i l m s t a r t e d with the a c t u a l breaking i n t o the apartment, showed a few a c t s of vandalism and the t h e f t of v a r i o u s o b j e c t s , and ended with the c r i m i n a l l e a v i n g the apartment with h i s l o o t . There was no soundtrack f o r t h i s p a r t of the v i d e o t a p e . T h i s segment l a s t e d approximately twelve minutes. A second videotape was f i l m e d d e p i c t i n g the i n t e r i o r of a one-bedroom apartment. T h i s was a l s o f i l m e d from the " p e r p e t t r a t o r ' s " p o i n t of view, but t h i s time, no crime was committed. The f i l m simply c o n s i s t e d of a d e t a i l e d v i s i t of t h i s apartment. Again there was no soundtrack f o r t h i s part of the videotape which l a s t e d approximately ten minutes. The purpose of t h i s f i l m was to provide a 54 stimulus f o r innocent s u b j e c t s which was e s s e n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t i n length and q u a l i t y t o the crime v i d e o t a p e , but without the crime dimension. Twenty-two G u i l t y Knowledge-type q u e s t i o n s ( i . e . , m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e format) r e l a t i n g to the crime videotape were then generated. These d e a l t with d e t a i l s of the crime and s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the b u r g l a r i z e d apartment ( Appendix A1) . T h i s 22-item q u e s t i o n n a i r e was then a d m i n i s t e r e d to twenty second-year psychology students who had not seen the crime videotape. These s u b j e c t s were asked to t r y to guess which were the r i g h t answers to each of the q u e s t i o n s . T h i s p r o v i d e d a transparency t e s t f o r the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e a l t e r n a t i v e s ( Appendix A2) . I t i s q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g to note at t h i s p o i n t t h at c e r t a i n items which had i n i t i a l l y appeared q u i t e good had to be m o d i f i e d or dropped as a r e s u l t of t h i s transparency t e s t (e.g., q u e s t i o n s 1, 10, 13, 19 ) . A twenty-item open-ended v e r s i o n of t h i s t e s t was then produced ( Appendix A3 ). I t e s s e n t i a l l y asked the same q u e s t i o n s , but d i d not p r o v i d e any a l t e r n a t i v e s t o choose from; s u b j e c t s had to generate t h e i r own answers. Thus, f o r a person having seen the crime videotape, i t p r o v i d e d a much more powerful t e s t of item s a l i e n c y s i n c e i t t e s t e d a b s o l u t e r e c a l l , not r e c o g n i t i o n . T h i r t y - s i x t h i r d - y e a r psychology students viewed the crime videotape and were t e s t e d with t h i s open-ended q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( Appendix A4). A f i n a l ten-item q u e s t i o n n a i r e was assembled by 55 choosing from the o r i g i n a l pool those items that were most e a s i l y r e c a l l e d , but not t r a n s p a r e n t i n a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e format ( Appendix A5) . T h i s f i n a l m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used f o r the G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n i n the second, major phase of t h i s study. PHASE 2 S u b j e c t s : S i x t y male s u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d from undergraduate psychology c l a s s e s and the student manpower center on campus. Upon v o l u n t e e r i n g , students f i l l e d out an a v a i l a b i l i t y form and a medical survey ( Appendix B). The medical surveys d i d not c o n t a i n the name of the s u b j e c t s , but r a t h e r a coded number. The coded surveys were then passes on f o r s c r e e n i n g by a p s y c h i a t r i s t . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was kept c o n f i d e n t i a l and i n a locked o f f i c e . Of the s i x t y s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t s , s i x i n d i v i d u a l s were not i n c l u d e d i n the d e t e c t i o n data because of low e l e c t r o d e r m a l r e s p o n s i v i t y ; f i e l d polygraphers would r e f e r to such cases as " i n c o n c l u s i v e s " (Arthur, 1977). Subjects ranged in age from 19 to 28; t h e i r mean age was 22.8. A l l s u b j e c t s gave informed consent and were p a i d f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s two hour s e s s i o n . Instruments and M a t e r i a l s : P h y s i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y was recorded on a four-channel Beckman Type R612 Dynograph. Skin conductance was recorded from Beckman one-centimeter b i o p o t e n t i a l Ag/AgCl e l e c t r o d e s a t t a c h e d to the d i s t a l phalanges of the f i r s t and second f i n g e r of each hand. The e l e c t r o l y t e c o n s i s t e d 56 of p h y s i o l o g i c a l s a l i n e mixed with Unibase f o l l o w i n g the r e c i p e p r o v i d e d i n Lykken and Venables (1971). To ensure that the s u r f a c e of s k i n i n con t a c t with e l e c t r o l y t e was s i m i l a r f o r each f i n g e r and both hands, two e l e c t r o d e c o l l a r s were used to a t t a c h each e l e c t r o d e . The f i r s t c o l l a r , which had a 1.1 cm diameter, was at t a c h e d to the s u b j e c t ' s s k i n a f t e r f i r s t a l i g n i n g the cente r of the c o l l a r with the center of the the f i n g e r p r i n t . The second c o l l a r , which was a l s o 1.1 cm i n diameter, was a f f i x e d t o the e l e c t r o d e . Then the two c o l l a r s were a l i g n e d and the e l e c t r o d e a t t a c h e d . T h i s procedure guaranteed that there was no leakage between the e l e c t r o d e c o l l a r and the s k i n and that the area of s k i n i n co n t a c t with the e l e c t r o l y t e was about 0.95 squared-centimeters. Conductance was recorded using two Beckman Type 9844 s k i n conductance c o u p l e r s . Maximum s e n s i t i v i t y was 1 umho/cm of c h a r t d e f l e c t i o n . Three Ag/AgCl e l e c t r o d e s were atta c h e d i n a Type II l e a d ( A n d r e a s s i , 1980) to monitor heart r a t e . A cardiotachometer c o u p l e r ( Beckman Type 9857) conv e r t e d raw e l e c t r o c a r d i o g r a m measurements to heart r a t e . The s e n s i t i v i t y used was twenty beats per minute per 1 cm of ch a r t paper, with a minimum of 40 beats per minute and a maximum of 120 beats per minute. T h o r a c i c r e s p i r a t i o n was recorded using a s t r a i n gauge p o s i t i o n e d around the s u b j e c t ' s chest and connected to a v o l t a g e / p u l s e / p r e s s u r e c o u p l e r ( Beckman Type 9853H). Two s t a n d a r d i z e d p e n c i l and paper q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were 57 employed i n the study. A l l s u b j e c t s completed the State T r a i t Anxiety Inventory ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968) and the D i f f e r e n t i a l P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( T e l l e g e n , 1976). Subjects a l s o f i l l e d out a s c a l e designed to assess hand dominance (Appendix C1). In a d d i t i o n , other s c a l e s were de v i s e d to assess the impact of the experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s . These i n c l u d e : a Rating of Drug Status (Appendix C2); a 15-item open-ended t e s t of R e c a l l of C r i t i c a l Knowledge for g u i l t y s u b j e c t s a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t on the i n t e r r o g a t i o n items p l u s a 10-item open-ended t e s t of R e c a l l of C r i t i c a l Knowledge fo r s u b j e c t s viewing the innocent videotape (ROCKB, Appendix C4); and f i n a l l y , a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s a s s e s s i n g the s u b j e c t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the experiment and the s u b j e c t ' s r a t i n g of h i s own drug s t a t u s (EAR, Appendix C5) . The other stimulus m a t e r i a l s used are the two v i d e o t a p e s , videotape A being the crime s t i m u l u s , videotape B, the innocent s t i m u l u s , and the G u i l t y Knowledge I n t e r r o g a t i o n . The c a p s u l e s given to the s u b j e c t s were a l l i d e n t i c a l in appearance. They were prepared at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia pharmacy and c o n t a i n e d e i t h e r 10 mg diazepam, xx mg l a c t o s e , or 20 mg methylphenidate. Design: S u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d to one of four c o n d i t i o n s ( F i g u r e 1). In the f i r s t c o n d i t i o n , f i f t e e n s u b j e c t s viewed the g u i l t y v ideotape, ingested a capsule 58 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Subj e c t s N = 60 G u i l t y n = 45 Innocen t n = 15 VALIUM n = 15 PLACEBO n = 15 RITALIN n = 15 INTERROGATION: - SCL, SCR - HR - R e s p i r a t i o n N = 60 . G u i l t M a n i p u l a t i o n M a n i p u l a t i o n 59 C o n t a i n i n g 10 mg of diazepam and a f t e r a one-hour w a i t i n g p e r i o d , underwent a G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n . The second and t h i r d c o n d i t i o n s were i d e n t i c a l to the f i r s t , except that s u b j e c t s i n g e s t e d capsules c o n t a i n i n g l a c t o s e and 20 mg methylphenidate r e s p e c t i v e l y . In f o u r t h c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s viewed the innocent videotape and d i d not in g e s t a c a p s u l e . They d i d however undergo the G u i l t y Knowledge i n t e r r o g a t i o n a f t e r a one-hour w a i t i n g p e r i o d . Procedure; In order to f a c i l i t a t e the understanding of a rather lengthy procedure (approximately two hours per s u b j e c t ) , the d e s c r i p t i o n of the procedure has been broken down i n t o f i v e p a r t s . The experiment was c a r r i e d out i n two rooms: an o f f i c e and a room c o n t a i n i n g a s h i e l d e d booth with the i n t e r r o g a t i o n equipment. A l l p a r t s of the study, except the f o u r t h , were c a r r i e d out i n the o f f i c e . 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n : When f i r s t c o n tacted to set up an appointment, s u b j e c t s were asked to a b s t a i n from drugs and a l c o h o l f o r the twelve hours p r i o r to the experiment. They were a l s o asked not to eat d u r i n g the two hours immediately preceding the appointment. Upon p r e s e n t i n g h i m s e l f to the o f f i c e , a s u b j e c t was greeted by the experimenter. The experimenter then asked the s u b j e c t to read a consent form (Appendix D) and request any a p p r o p r i a t e c l a r i f i c a t i o n s before s i g n i n g the consent form. The experimenter would then e x p l a i n that t h i s study was being run as a d o u b l e - b l i n d , meaning that he, the experimenter, would not know which of the two f i l m s the 60 s u b j e c t s would see or whether or not the subj e c t i n g e s t e d a capsule (or the contents of the capsule) u n t i l the end of the s e s s i o n . S i m i l a r l y , even though the su b j e c t would know which f i l m he saw and whether or not he d i d indeed take a c a p s u l e , he would not know the contents of the capsule u n t i l the experiment was f i n i s h e d two hours l a t e r . The b l i n d would be broken at that time when a s e a l e d envelope c o n t a i n i n g these d e t a i l s would be opened. Once the experimenter was sure that t h i s was c l e a r to the s u b j e c t , he took out a l a r g e brown envelope which c o n t a i n e d three sealed envelopes, as w e l l as the necessary paper and p e n c i l measures, a l r e a d y coded with a f o u r - d i g i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The experimenter then took out the f i r s t envelope and s a i d to the s u b j e c t : "Do you see that p l a s t i c bag on top of the t e l e v i s i o n set? I n s i d e that p l a s t i c bag there are two boxes: one of them i s l a b e l l e d ' Tape A*, the other, 'Tape B'. Insi d e t h i s envelope that I am about to give you, there i s a c a r d which t e l l s you which of these two tapes to choose. I'm going to leave the room while you open the envelope. During that time, you w i l l go over to the bag, take out the box that the c a r d i n the envelope t e l l s you to choose and take the unmarked tape out of the box. You w i l l then put back the box in the p l a s t i c bag so that I w i l l not know from which box the unmarked tape was taken. 61 For the same reason, you w i l l d i s c a r d the envelope and the c a r d i n t o t h i s wastebasket. A f t e r you have done t h i s , you w i l l c a l l me back i n t o the o f f i c e , so that I can set the tape up f o r you to view on the t e l e v i s i o n monitor. Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? " The experimenter then c l a r i f i e d any qu e s t i o n s about t h i s and then l e f t the room while the sub j e c t r e t r i e v e d the a p p r o p r i a t e tape from the p l a s t i c bag. Upon r e t u r n i n g to the o f f i c e , the experimenter had the sub j e c t remove the second s e a l e d envelope from the l a r g e brown envelope. The experimenter then gave the sub j e c t the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : "That envelope you have j u s t taken out of the l a r g e brown envelope i s f o r you to open a f t e r you have f i n i s h e d watching the videotape. Right now, I am s e t t i n g up the tape on t h i s videotape machine, so that when I l e a v e , a l l you w i l l have to do to watch the tape i s to turn t h i s switch to 'Forward' ( p o i n t s to s w i t c h ) . The volume i s pr e s e t on the t e l e v i s i o n , so you don't have to worry about t h a t . Once the f i l m i s f i n i s h e d , a l l you have to do i s turn the same switch back to ' O f f ( p o i n t s to s w i t c h ) . So, b a s i c a l l y , a l l you have to do i s turn the videotape machine on, watch the videotape c a r e f u l l y , and when the tape i s f i n i s h e d i n about 62 f i f t e e n minutes, turn the machine o f f . While you are doing t h i s , I w i l l be i n the c o f f e e room, which i s two doors down to the r i g h t . " "Once the tape i s f i n i s h e d , I want you to open that sealed envelope and f o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s that are i n s i d e . I t won't be anything complicated. J u s t before you got here, I brought i n a f r e s h g l a s s of water and put i t here, next to the c h a i r y o u ' l l be s i t t i n g in when you watch the tape. So, i f you get t h i r s t y , of i f you have to take a ca p s u l e , there's p l e n t y of water f o r you r i g h t here." "Once you have watched the tape and done whatever the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n s i d e the envelope t e l l you to do, come and get me i n the c o f f e e room, which i s two doors down to the r i g h t . We w i l l come back i n here so that you can f i l l out a few p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? " The experimenter then answered any qu e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to these i n s t r u c t i o n s and then l e f t to go wait i n the c o f f e e room. Experimental M a n i p u l a t i o n s : During the second part of the experiment, s u b j e c t s viewed e i t h e r the innocent or the g u i l t y v ideotape. Subjects watching the innocent videotape were p r o v i d e d with i n s t r u c t i o n s on the tape designed to i n c r e a s e t h e i r r e t e n t i o n of the videotape (Appendix E1). 63 T h i s was done by s t a t i n g that there would be a t e s t of r e c a l l f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l l a t e r on i n the experiment. A f t e r the f i l m showing the i n s i d e of the apartment was f i n i s h e d , the s u b j e c t s saw and heard a second set of i n s t r u c t i o n s on the tape (Appendix E2) which informed them that they had j u s t been mistaken f o r another person and were being accused of t h e f t . I t t o l d them how to best r e a c t to t h i s u nfortunate s i t u a t i o n . I t a l s o t o l d them to turn o f f the videotape machine and read the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the envelope. The i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the envelope f o r the innocent people were designed to ensure b l i n d n e s s on the part of the experimenter by urging the s u b j e c t not to ask any qu e s t i o n s at t h i s p o i n t (Appendix . aE3). They a l s o i n d i c a t e d to these s u b j e c t s that i t was time to go get the experimenter i n the c o f f e e room. Su b j e c t s viewing the g u i l t y videotape were a l s o presented with v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y i n s t r u c t i o n s at the beginning of t h e i r tape (Appendix E4). These were designed to g i v e them an imaginary motive f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a b u r g l a r y . They were a l s o designed to i n c r e a s e t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n to remember d e t a i l s from the f i l m they were about to watch. S i m i l a r l y , a f t e r the videotape showing the t h e f t was f i n i s h e d , f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s on the tape e x p l a i n e d that they were being accused of the crime which they had j u s t committed. The taped i n s t r u c t i o n s e x p l a i n e d that i f they managed to f o o l a l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t , they would be completely exonerated (Appendix E5). They were 64 a l s o asked to turn the videotape machine n o f f and read the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the envelope. The envelope c o n t a i n e d , along with some i n s t r u c t i o n s , a yellow capsule c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r the diazepam, the placebo, or the methylphenidate. The i n s t r u c t i o n s e x p l a i n e d that the capsule might h e l p them f o o l the l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t (Appendix E6). They a l s o helped to ensure experimenter b l i n d n e s s by u r g i n g s u b j e c t s not to ask any q u e s t i o n s at t h i s p o i n t . F i n a l l y , they asked the subject to get the experimenter i n the c o f f e e room. Waiting P e r i o d : A f t e r the s u b j e c t had gone to the c o f f e e room to get the experimenter, they both returned to the o f f i c e . At t h i s p o i n t , the experimenter set a timer f o r 50 minutes. He asked the s u b j e c t to s i t at a desk and then read the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the State T r a i t Anxiety Inventory ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968) to him. He waited while the s u b j e c t completed both forms of t h i s i n v e n t o r y and then read the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( T e l l e g e n , 1976) to him. He informed the su b j e c t that he had the remaining time ( u s u a l l y 45 minutes) to complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f the s u b j e c t f i n i s h e d before the timer rang, he was to s i t q u i e t l y t i l l the experimenter i n d i c a t e d that i t was time f o r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . During t h i s p a r t of the s e s s i o n , the experimenter kept v e r b a l c o n t a c t with the s u b j e c t at a minimum in order to ensure completion of both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and a l s o to ensure e q u a l i t y of c o n d i t i o n s a c r o s s s u b j e t s . 65 I n t e r r o q a t ion : As soon as the 50-minute w a i t i n g p e r i o d had elapsed, the experimenter asked the su b j e c t to fo l l o w him to the s h i e l d e d booth. The experimenter took a detour to a s t a i r w e l l where he asked the sub j e c t to go down and climb back up two f l i g h t s of s t a i r s (40 s t e p s ) . T h i s was done to ensure approximately e q u i v a l e n t amounts of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l p r i o r to the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . He then l e d the subject to the s h i e l d e d booth where he att a c h e d the t h o r a c i c r e s p i r a t i o n b e l t and the e l e c t r o d e s fo r c a r d i a c and e l e c t r o d e r m a l a c t i v i t y to the s u b j e c t . During that time, the experimenter e x p l a i n e d the i n t e r r o g a t i o n procedure: "I am going to ask you a s e r i e s of qu e s t i o n s which are very much l i k e m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s . Your task i s going to be q u i t e simple. At the beginning of each q u e s t i o n , I w i l l make an opening statement, e.g., ' I f you are g u i l t y of k i l l i n g John Doe, then you know what was used to k i l l him.' Now you j u s t l i s t e n to t h a t p a r t of the q u e s t i o n , you don't say anything." A f t e r t h a t , however, I w i l l go through a l i s t of a l t e r n a t i v e s . A f t e r each one, I want you to say:' No, i t wasn't...' and repeat the a l t e r n a t i v e that I have j u s t mentionned. Whatever the a l t e r n a t i v e i s , your answer should always be 'no'. Now, i f we were c o n t i n u i n g with that example of John 66 Doe's murder, I might ask you: 'Was i t a k n i f e ? ' You would answer: 'No, i t wasn't a k n i f e . ' I might then ask you: 'Was i t poison?' and you would answer: 'No, i t wasn't poison.' I might then ask you: 'Was i t i t a rope?' You would answer: 'No, i t wasn't a rope.' So, what would you answer i f I asked you: 'Was i t a gun?' (waits f o r s u b j e c t ' s answer). Good. Do you have any q u e s t i o n s about t h i s procedure before we s t a r t ? " Once he was sure that the s u b j e c t f u l l y understood the i n t e r r o g a t i o n procedure, the experimenter f i l l e d out the R a t i n g of Drug Status (Appendix C2). A f t e r t h a t , he asked the s u b j e c t to take and h o l d a few deep br e a t h s . T h i s was done to c a l i b r a t e the r e s p i r a t i o n channel and a l s o to promote e l e c t r o d e r m a l responding. The experimenter then proceeded with the i n t e r r o g a t i o n (Appendix A5). Once the i n t e r r o g a t i o n was f i n i s h e d , the experimenter f i l l e d out the second Rating of Drug Status (Appendix C2), d i s c o n n e c t e d the e l e c t r o d e s , and e s c o r t e d the s u b j e c t back to the o f f i c e . He asked the s u b j e c t to r e f r a i n from asking any q u e s t i o n s f o r another few minutes. D e b r i e f i n g : Upon r e t u r n i n g to the o f f i c e , the s u b j e c t f i l l e d out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s s e s s i n g h i s p e r c e p t i o n of the experiment and r a t e d h i m s e l f on h i s own drug s t a t u s (Appendix C5). He a l s o f i l l e d out the a p p r o p r i a t e r e c a l l s c a l e : ROCKA (Appendix C3) f o r s u b j e c t s who had seen the 67 g u i l t y videotape; ROCKB (Appendix C4) f o r those who had seen the innocent videotape. Subjects a l s o f i l l e d out the s t a t e form of the State T r a i t A nxiety Inventory ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968) and the hand dominance s c a l e (Appendix C1). During t h i s time, the experimenter scored the s u b j e c t ' s DPQ and f i l l e d out a feedback form (Appendix F ) . A f t e r the subject had f i n f i l l i n g out the d e b r i e f i n g forms, the experimenter showed him h i s polygraph c h a r t s and e x p l a i n e d what each channel measured. He then opened the t h i r d s e a l e d envelope which r e v e a l e d the s u b j e c t ' s true experimental c o n d i t i o n ( i n n o c e n t / g u i l t y , v a l i u m / p l a c e b o / r i t a l i n ) . A f t e r t h i s , he gave the subject the DPQ feedback form (Appendix F) and e x p l a i n e d to the su b j e c t how to i n t e r p r e t i t . F i n a l l y , the experimenter p a i d the s u b j e c t , answered any q u e s t i o n s he had about the whole experiment and thanked him f o r h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures; Skin conductance response was measured as the d i f f e r e n c e between the maximum reached f o l l o w i n g stimulus onset and the p r e s t i m u l u s l e v e l . G u i l t s c ores were computed a c c o r d i n g to Lykken (1960). A l l s k i n conductance responses except those a s s o c i a t e d with b u f f e r s (the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e to every question) were rank ordered a c c o r d i n g to magnitude. If the s k i n conductance response to the c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e had the hig h e s t magnitude of the four responses, then i t got a score of 2. If i t was second h i g h e s t , i t got a score of 1. T i e s were handled i n the 68 usual manner, s p l i t t i n g the rank score among t i e d responses. The a c t u a l G u i l t score f o r an i n d i v i d u a l was determined by summing up h i s 20 i n d i v i d u a l rank scores (10 qu e s t i o n s X 2 hands), and d i v i d i n g t h i s t o t a l by the number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s that s u b j e c t had shown. A q u e s t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d s c o r a b l e i f at l e a s t one a l t e r n a t i v e other than the b u f f e r e l i c i t e d a s k i n conductance response g r e a t e r than, or equal to 0.03 umhos. Subsequent to t h i s , s k i n conductance response amplitudes were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s both hands. S i m i l a r l y , t o n i c s k i n conductance l e v e l s , which were d e f i n e d as the sk i n conductance l e v e l s immediately preceding the onset of each of the ten q u e s t i o n s , were a l s o c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s hands. Heart r a t e was d e f i n e d as the average heart r a t e d u r i n g the 5 seconds immediately preceding the onset of each of the ten q u e s t i o n s . R e s p i r a t i o n was q u a n t i f i e d by counting the number of seconds taken to complete 15 c y c l e s d u r i n g the f i r s t q u e s t i o n and by r e p e a t i n g t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n f o r the l a s t 15 c y c l e s d u r i n g the te n t h and f i n a l q u e s t i o n . 69 CHAPTER 3 70 RESULTS In t h i s chapter, r e s u l t s obtained from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data w i l l be presented. F i r s t , g e neral d e s c r i p t i v e data on the s u b j e c t s w i l l be presented. These i n c l u d e the r e s u l t s of the p e r s o n a l i t y measures used i n the course of the study. Data r e l a t i n g to the crime f i l m and i t s a s s o c i a t e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l w i l l f o l l o w . T h i r d l y , the r e s u l t s of the g u i l t y / i n n o c e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n . Afterwards, we w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g from the g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e m a n i p u l a t i o n . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s f o r p o s s i b l e drug e f f e c t s then f o l l o w s . F i n a l l y , post hoc t e s t s of i n t e r e s t w i l l be presented. D e s c r i p t i v e Subject Data: D e s c r i p t i v e data was gathered on a l l s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the w a i t i n g p e r i o d before the i n t e r r o g a t i o n and d u r i n g the d e b r i e f i n g p e r i o d a f t e r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . F i g u r e 2 d e p i c t s the r e s u l t s of the measure of t r a i t a n x i e t y from the STAI ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968). The r e s u l t s from the seventeen s c a l e s of the DPQ ( T e l l e g e n , 1976) can be found i n F i g u r e 3. These v a r i a b l e s (STAI, DPQ) were t e s t e d i n a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (SPSS:9, 1982). The o v e r a l l c o n t r a s t of the four groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(s=3,m=7,n=l8.5)=1.32, 2=0.108). These r e s u l t s , as w e l l as the u n i v a r i a t e t e s t s f o r each v a r i a b l e are given i n Table 5. As can be expected, s u b j e c t s i n the four groups d i d not d i f f e r from one another along these dimensions. Subjects'hand dominance was a l s o assessed (Appendix ANXIETY MEASURES (STAI) 40\ 35i 30-21 INNO VAL PLA RIT TRAIT ANXIETY INNOCENT o c VALIUM o — o PLACEBO • - - - -a RITALIN \ X \ X " X -X N, • BEGINNING END STATE ANXIETY DPQ PERSONALITY SCORES j 2 3 4 5 6 7 * 9 7017121^74 75 76 17 SCALES Table 5 Variable T r a i t Anxiety (STal) DPQ #1 DPQ #2 DPQ #3 DPQ #4 DPQ #5 DPQ #6 DPQ #7 (Hard Work) DPQ #0 DPQ #9 DPQ #10 DPQ #11 DPQ #12 DPQ #13 DPQ #H DPQ #15 DPQ #16 DPQ #17 Univariate F Teota F Rutio 2.010 1 .001 1 .293 0 . 3 0 3 0.600 1 .706 0 .^54 4.910 1 .677 0.260 0.761 1.675 1 .966 1 . 5 9 0 1.003 1.152 3.008 ' 0.831 F P r o b a b i l i t y 0.1219 0.3991 0.2850 0.8229 0.6174 0.1762 0.6477 0.0042 0.1824 0.0537 0.5207 .0.1028 0.1295 0.2002 0.3638 0.3362 0.0343 0.4026 A l l F Tests with 3 degreea of f.-eedora (4-1). 74 C1). A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a b l e f o r w r i t i n g s t y l e appears i n Table 6. The numerical s c a l e f o r hand pr e f e r e n c e was s u b j e c t e d to a oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (SPSS:9,1982). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the four groups (F(3)=0.126 ,2=0.9438). The r e s u l t s are d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 4. F i n a l l y , the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the experiment was assessed by the f i r s t three q u e s t i o n s of the EAR s c a l e (Appendix C5). A oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d that s u b j e c t s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r c o n f i d e n c e i n l i e d e t e c t i o n (F(3,56)=0.920, £=0.4371), in t h e i r c o n f i d e n c e i n the examiner (F(3,56)=3.523, 2 =0«0207) of t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t the experimenter was t r u l y b l i n d to experimental c o n d i t i o n s (F(3,56=0.542, 2=0.6563). The mean confid e n c e r a t i n g s are d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 5. O v e r a l l , then, s u b j e c t s d i d not show any between group d i f f e r e n c e s on the above-mentionned v a r i a b l e s . These can t h e r e f o r e be d i s c o u n t e d as an p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r f u t u r e between-groups d i f f e r e n c e s . V a l i d a t i o n of Crime F i l m and I n t e r r o g a t i o n P r o t o c o l : As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , we wanted to make sure that the g u i l t y s u b j e c t s would remember the d e t a i l s of the crime f i l m . F i g u r e 6 d e p i c t s the frequency of c o r r e c t responses to the 10 q u e s t i o n s of the ROCKA that were i n the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l f o r a l l three g u i l t y groups and the frequency of c o r r e c t guesses by the 15 innocent s u b j e c t s on the same 10 q u e s t i o n s from the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e format of the ROCKB q u e s t i o n n a i r e . As we can see, not only d i d the g u i l t y 75 TABLE 6 W r i t i n g S t y l e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n W r i t i n g S t y l e Innocent Va1ium Placebo R i t a l i n L e f t I n v e r t e d 2 0 0 1 L e f t Normal 1 1 2 1 Right I n v e r t e d 1 0 0 1 Right Normal 6 9 8 9 Chi-Square(9)=6.97228, p=0.64 RI6HT H 'ERALITY SCOR 76 s c 0 K E *1 is-1<H 'CM — I F T innocent placebo vauum ntGlin 77 hIGURt 6 RECALL OF" CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE 75 0 INNOCENT c — o PLACEBO o—o VALIUM a a RITALIN \ R E 7o^  Q U E A I N A / 1 / \A \ j V V 7 2 3 4 5 6 / 8 9 10 ITEMS 79 Subjects do a good job of remembering the a p p r o p r i a t e d e t a i l s , but the innocent s u b j e c t s d i d not f a r e too w e l l in t h e i r guessing, except f o r q u e s t i o n 10. D e s p i t e the small v a r i a n c e i n r e c a l l d i s p l a y e d by the g u i l t y s u b j e c t s , a Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d between t h e i r t o t a l r e c a l l score on the 15 items of the ROCKA and t h e i r g u i l t score was very s i g n i f i c a n t (r=0.53, p=0.00008). In other words, g u i l t y s u b j e c t s who remembered more d e t a i l s of the crime f i l m tended to score more in the g u i l t y d i r e c t i o n . F i n a l l y , the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n was assessed u s i n g the SPSS R e l i a b i l i t y procedure (SPSS:9, 1982). The i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , as estimated by Cronbach's alpha, was 0.896. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n R e s u l t s ; Six s u b j e c t s were excluded from t h i s a n a l y s i s because they d i d not meet the c r i t e r i o n of ten or more s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s . Since g u i l t scores ranged from 0 to 2, the c u t o f f score was set at 1 (Lykken, 1960). Any s u b j e c t s c o r i n g below 1 was c l a s s i f i e d innocent, while any s u b j e c t s c o r i n g between 1 and 2 was c l a s s i f i e d g u i l t y . T h i s data i s presented i n Table 7. A Yates c o r r e c t e d c h i -square t e s t performed on t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was very s i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.00l). The o v e r a l l h i t r a t e was 81.7% i n c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s , and 90.7% e x c l u d i n g the i n c o n c l u s i v e s u b j e c t s . No f a l s e p o s i t i v e s o c c u r r e d , and l e s s than 10% f a l s e n egatives were present. G u i l t Ef f e c t s : Since the three g u i l t y groups were e q u i v a l e n t on most measures (see f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ) , only TABLE 7 Number of Subjects Found G u i l t y or Innocent In Each Group Group C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Innocent Valium R i t a l i n Placebo G u i l t y 0 13 13 11 Innocent 12 0 2 3 Yates corrected x (3) = 29.41, p_ < .001 81 The placebo group was used i n the c o n t r a s t with the innocent group. In t h i s way, both c o n t r a s t groups had equal c e l l s which f a c i l i t a t e s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and pr o v i d e s v a l u a b l e insurance when some ba s i c s t a t i s t i c a l assumptions are v i o l a t e d . Since most of the dependent measures were repeated measures, the BMD P2V program f o r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was used (BMD, 1981). T h i s program has the advantage of making the Greenhouse G e i s s e r c o r r e c t i o n f o r repeated measures. When s e v e r a l repeated measures are taken, the number of degrees of freedom becomes s p u r i o u s l y high. The Greenhouse G e i s s e r procedure circumvents t h i s problem by c a l c u l a t i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n between each repeated measure and a p p l y i n g a corresponding c o r r e c t i o n to the degrees of freedom used i n the F t e s t . The u n c o r r e c t e d degrees of freedom and the e p s i l o n (e) c o r r e c t i o n are given. The average heart r a t e p r i o r to each of the ten qu e s t i o n s i s presented f o r a l l four groups i n F i g u r e 7. The repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e d i d not y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t (F(1)=0.60, p=0.4464). There was, however, a q u e s t i o n e f f e c t (F(9)=2.70, e=0.7l83, Greenhouse 2=0.0051). T h i s can be a t t r i b u t e d to between quesion v a r i a b i l i t y i n heart r a t e . No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were p r e s e n t . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s was performed on r e s p i r a t i o n time (seconds to complete 15 c y c l e s of breathing) measured d u r i n g the f i r s t and the ten t h q u e s t i o n . Neither the group e f f e c t (F(1)=0.11, 2 = 0 - 7 3 " ) n o r t h e q u e s t i o n e f f e c t HEART RATE (5 BEAT AVERAGES) PRIOR TO EACH QUESTION 80-BEATS -PER MIN, 70\ a—* INNOCENT c — o VALIUM .a-d •* 3 * b—o PLACEBO • • RITALIN •D- •Q-... * * • • • | j»...=*«!»••» Q ^ 6 0 Q7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 83 (F(1,28)=0.54, 2=0.4680) were s i g n i f i c a n t . Once again, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n . The data are presented g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 8. Tonic s k i n conductance l e v e l was measured p r i o r t o . the onset of each of the ten q u e s t i o n s . F i g u r e 9 d e p i c t s the r e s u l t s f o r a l l four groups. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t (F(1)=0.29, 2 = 0 - 5 9 5 9 ) n o r w a s there a s i g n i f i c a n t q u e s t i o n e f f e c t (F(9)=0.29, e=0.20, Greenhouse 2=0.7287). There was a l s o no i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s (maximum= 20) a s u b j e c t o b t a i n e d was a l s o used as a dependent v a r i a b l e . An SPSS Oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (SPSS:9, 1982) between the innocent and placebo groups d i d not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s (F(1,28)=0.956, 2 = 0 ' 3 3 6 7 ) « The average number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s per group i s presented i n F i g u r e 10. A f i n a l c o n t r a s t between the placebo group and innocent group was performed to compare l e v e l s of s t a t e a n x i e t y ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968) i n both groups. The between groups e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(1)=0.00, 2 = 0 « 9 6 5 5 ) but the time e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t (F(1)=11.11, 2=0.0024). T h i s means that both groups experienced a decrease i n s t a t e a n x i e t y from the beginnin of the experiment to the end (see F i g u r e 2 ). No i n t e r a c t i o n s were pr e s e n t . One c o n t r a s t was made s o l e l y between g u i l t y groups. The average s k i n conductance response to the c r i t i c a l item f o r each q u e s t i o n was p l o t t e d f o r each group versus the average of the three n o n - c r i t i c a l , non-buffer items, f o r FIG. 8 RESPIRATION TIME (SECONDS TO COMPLETE 75 RESPIRATION CYCLES') S E C 0 N D S 70-60-•-o INNOCENT o—o VALIUM o o PLACEBO • RITALIN 5 0 -z. Ql Q10 SKIN CONDUCTANCE LEVELS PRIOR TO EACH QUESTION 10.0. 9.0. JU M 8.0] H 0 zo\ s 6\0J INNOCENT 0 . — o VALIUM ..-a- •a-t i -e r a — -a RITALIN o o PLACEBO •O-•O-•Q- •a • •O' a - ' • O , •o- •-o •o~~—<y' 2 C D C O 5 . 0 . 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 70 QUESTIONS CO Cn No. OF SCORABLE "ITEMS 11-ii _ 10-v a l i u m r i t c l i r : AVERAGE SCRs TO INNOCENT AND GUILTY ALTERNATIVES .70-.60-. 4 0 -JJ to] M H 0 -30-1 S . 2 0 . . 7 0 -0 0 V GUILTY ALTERNATIVES VALIUM PLACEBO RITALIN \ V \ V V \ INNOCENT &-OVALIUM ALTERNATIVES^^ - < \ % Q < o •-' /xk JC X - / A • o - o ' -ex 'TO •a v 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 70 QUESTIONS 88 Each q u e s t i o n f o r each group. The data i s presented i n F i g u r e 11. A repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e on t h i s data y i e l d e d very i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . F i r s t , there was no d i f f e r e n c e a s s o c i a t e d with the group e f f e c t (F(2)=0.29, £=0.7477). There as however a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r the type of a l t e r n a t i v e ( i . e . , c r i t i c a l or i r r e l e v a n t ) being measured (F (1 ) =53 . 1 1 , p_<0.00CH). In other words, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the average s k i n conductance responses to c r i t i c a l and i r r e l e v a n t a l t e r n a t i v e s . There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r q u e s t i o n s (F(9)=15.17), Greenhouse G e i s s e r £ = 0 . 0 ) . F i n a l l y , there was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the type c r i t i c i a l / i r r e l e v a n t a l t e r n a t i v e e f f e c t and the q u e s t i o n e f f e c t (F(9)=4.15, Greenhouse G e i s s e r £=0.0005). If one looks at F i g u r e 11, one can see that the sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between c r i t i c i a l and i r r e l e v a n t a l t e r n a t i v e s fades over time, e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r q u e s t i o n 5. N e i t h e r the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n nor the other two way i n t e r a c t i o n s proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Drug E f f e c t s : While examining drug e f f e c t s we w i l l look at both paper and p e n c i l data and p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures. C o n t r a s t s w i l l be made between the three g u i l t y groups: s u b j e c t s who viewed the crime videotape and took e i t h e r 10 mg. Diazepam, 20 mg. Methylphenidate or a placebo c a p s u l e . F i r s t we w i l l look at s t a t e a n x i e t y as measured by the STAI ( S p i e l b e r g e r , 1968). The repeated measures a n a l y s i s iance on t h i s data y i e l d e d two s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s . As 89 with the g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e c o n t r a s t , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t time e f f e c t (F(1)=6.17, £=0.0170). Both the Valium and the placebo groups showed decreases i n s t a t e a n x i e t y from the beginning of the experiment to the end (see F i g u r e 2). The methylphenidate group, however, showed an i n c r e a s e i n s t a t e a n x i e t y from the beginning of the s e s s i o n to the end. T h i s l e d to a s i g n i f i c a n t time by group i n t e r a c t i o n (F(2)=4.64, £=0.0151). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t between groups (F(2)=0.31, £=0.7386). A oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on a l l three r a t i n g s the s u b j e c t s made durin g the d e b r i e f i n g part of the experiment. Subjects r a t e d the p r o b a b i l i t y that they had taken some drug ( e i t h e r diazepam or methylphenidate), some diazepam, and some methylphenidate (see F i g u r e 12). The r a t i n g f o r some drug had a s i g n i f i c a n t group e f f e c t (F(2,31=9.540,£=0.0006)as d i d that f o r the diazepam (F(2,31)=13.981, £<0.0001). M u l t i p l e comparisons u s i n g the Sch e f f e procedure (SPSS:9, 1982) re v e a l e d that the diazepam group was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . S u b j e c t s i n t h i s group were more l i k e l y to judge themselves as having taken some drug, and having taken some diazepam. The methylphenidate r a t i n g d i d not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l s t s (F(2,31)=1.672, £=0.2043). The experimenter a l s o r a t e d the s u b j e c t s on a s i m i l a r s c a l e at two p o i n t s : before the i n t e r r o g a t i o n began and at the end of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . A repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on t h i s data. The f i r s t r a t i n g ("some drug") had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r group SUBJECTS' RATINGS OF THEIR OWN DRUG STATUS ' N O ' 5 H 4\ 3-2 'YES' 1-V P R '/ HAVE TAKEN SOME DRUG" V P R '/ HAVE TAKEN SOME VALIUM' V P R '/ HAVE TAKEN SOME RITALIN' C O O 91 (F(3,56)=8.79, 2=0.0001), f o r time (F(1,56) = 34.57,2=0.0001 ) and f o r the group by time i n t e r a c t i o n (F(3,56)=4.81 ,2=0.0047). T h i s means that there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n r a t i n g s between the four groups ( o s t e n s i b l y , the innocent group versus the three g u i l t y groups), that the examiner's r a t i n g s d r i f t e d i n the "probably some drug" d i r e c t i o n over time, but that t h i s was not done evenly f o r a l l groups: the diazepam group showed the sharpest i n c r e a s e i n t h i s r e s p e c t , f o l l o w e d by the placebo group. The methylphenidate and innocent groups showed r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e change (see F i g u r e 13). Turning to the p h y s i o l o g i c a l data, we can s t a r t by l o o k i n g at heart r a t e again ( F i g u r e 7). T h i s time the repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on the three g u i l t y groups. The group e f f e c t approached s i g n i f i c a n c e but d i d not a t t a i n i t (F(2,42)=2.59 ,2=0.0869). There was again a q u e s t i o n e f f e c t (F(9,378)=2.05, e=0.8457, 2 = 0 - 0 4 2 9 ) which probably r e f l e c t s the q u e s t i o n to q u e s t i o n v a r i a t i o n s i n heart r a t e . The qu e s t i o n by group i n t e r a c t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The r e s p i r a t i o n data (see F i g u r e 8) was a l s o put to a repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r the three g u i l t y groups. The group e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(2,42)=1.16, P=0.3247). The time e f f e c t was a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(1,9)=0.98, 2 = 0 « 3 2 7 2 ) ' There was however a time by group i n t e r a c t i o n (F(2,42)=3.44, 2 =0.0415) which can be e x p l a i n e d by n o t i n g that the methylphenidate group FI6 B 92 CO < i — o cr o 1^ O o 1 4 cr in LUl c o O J f^_Q .... <*> H QJ. -II • » • I i I tr, o I i - r - r I 11// T 3" — r c-4 V) QJ in o C L Q J LO O 0) C L in o Q J C L O > C D Z 3 TD QJ £ o 1 0 93 Slowed down i t s b r e a t h i n g time, while the placebo group remained r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e and the diazepam group s l i g h t l y quickened i t s r e s p i r a t i o n . The a n a l y s i s of the s k i n conductance l e v e l s f o r a l l three groups p r i o r to each q u e s t i o n d i d not y i e l d any s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r group e f f e c t (F(2,42)=1.44, £=0.2494), q u e s t i o n e f f e c t (F(9,378)=2.71 , e=0.25, p=0.0645) or group by q u e s t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n (F(18,378)=0.71, e=o.2530, 2 = 0 * 6 0 6 6 ) - T h i s d a t a c a n b e found i n F i g u r e 9. The number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s (see F i g u r e 10) was subj e c t e d to a oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . The group e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(2,42) = 1 .149, 2 = 0 « 3 2 6 8 ) ' F i n a l l y , as was s t a t e d i n the previous s e c t i o n , the c o n t r a s t of s k i n conductance responses to i r r e l e v a n t and c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r each q u e s t i o n was a l s o s u b j e c t e d to a repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . The group e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F(2,42)=0.29, 2= 0 ' 7 4 7 7)' Post-hoc Analyses: Because of the preceding r e s u l t s , a new g u i l t score was t a b u l a t e d , using only the responses to the f i r s t f i v e q u e s t i o n s of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l . The r e s u l t s are t a b u l a t e d i n Table 8. Although s e v e r a l g u i l t s cores were changed c o n s i d e r a b l y because of t h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n , the dichotomous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of g u i l t / i n n o c e n c e wasn't very much a l t e r e d . The h i t r a t e i n c l u d i n g i n c o n c l u s i v e s i s now 85% and without i n c o n c l u s i v e s , 91%. An attempt was made to c o r r e l a t e a l l of the TABLE 8 Post-hoc C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Table C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Innocent Va1i urn Placebo R i t a l i n Innocent 12 3 1 0 G u i l t y 1 11 13 15 95 P e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s with s u b j e c t s ' g u i l t scores and with the number of sc o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s each s u b j e c t emitted. T h i s was done because i t i s important to determine at some fu t u r e time, which p e r s o n a l i t y parameters, i f any, i n f l u e n c e the outcome of t h i s type of t e s t . The r e s u l t s can be found i n Tables 9 and 10. A l l of the preceding r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d i n the next chapter. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these f i n d i n g s and t h e i r p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s are presented t h e r e . TABLE 9 C o r r e l a t i o n s between P e r s o n a l i t y Measures and G u i l t Scores P e r s o n a l i t y S c ale C o r r e l a t i o n S i g n i f i c a n t S t a t e A n x i e t y (beginning) -0.0989 0.259 Sta t e A n x i e t y (end) -0.0952 0.267 Well - b e i n g 0.2310 0.063 S t r e s s -0.0426 0.390 U n f r i e d n l y World -0.1747 0. 125 Aggression -0.1307 0. 196 S o c i a l Closeness 0.0752 0.312 S o c i a l Potency \ 0.0212 0.445 Hard Work -0.2473 0.051 Impulsiveness 0.1291 0.199 Danger Seeking -0.0533 0.364 A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m 0.1424 0.175 Abs o r p t i o n 0.1313 0. 195 A s s o c i a t i v e S l i p s -0.1715 0.130 U n l i k e l y V i r t u e s 0.1235 0.209 Content Balanded D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.0107 0.472 Content Balanded Acquiescence 0. 1307 0. 196 Content Balanded Endrosement 0.2315 0.063 I n c o n s i s t e n c y -0. 1232 0.210 TABLE 10 C o r r e l a t i o n s between P e r s o n a l i t y Measures and Number of Sc o r a b l e Questions P e r s o n a l i t y S c ale C o r r e l a t i o n S i g n i f i c a n S t ate A n x i e t y (beginning) 0.0216 0.435 State A n x i e t y (end) -0.1172 0. 186 Well - b e i n g 0.1604 0.110 S t r e s s -0.0829 0.264 U n f r i e d n l y World 0.0279 0.416 Aggression 0.1544 0.119 S o c i a l Closeness 0.1288 0. 1 63 S o c i a l Potency 0.2395 0.033 Hard Work 0.1440 0. 1 36 Impulsiveness 0. 1170 0. 187 Danger Seeking 0.0887 0.250 A u t h o r i t a r i a n i sm -0.0052 0.484 Absorpt ion 0.2158 0.049 A s s o c i a t i v e S l i p s 0.0725 0.291 U n l i k e l y V i r t u e s -0.1927 0.070 Content Balanded D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.0007 0.498 Content Balanded Acquiescence -0.0642 0.313 Content Balanded Endrosement -0.2281 0.040 I n c o n s i s t e n c y 0.0407 0.379 98 CHAPTER 4 99 DISCUSSION  CLASSIFICATION RESULTS: The h i t r a t e obtained i n t h i s study i s comparable to those o b t a i n e d i n other mock crime s t u d i e s (see Table 1 ) . T h i s p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r support f o r our in n o v a t i o n s on the t r a d i t i o n a l experimental paradigms. The use of the crime videotape and the v a l i d a t i o n of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l do l e a d to e f f i c i e n t d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Perhaps the grea t e r success of some i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e l a t i v e to others i s due to t h e i r having employed a stronger m a n i p u l a t i o n . I f i n v e s t i g a t o r s s t a r t i n c o r p o r a t i n g such procedures i n t o t h e i r s t u d i e s , one c o u l d soon determine i f the weaker h i t r a t e s o b tained by some i n v e s t i g a t o r s are a c t u a l l y due to weak experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s r a t h e r ' than t o ^ the a c t u a l process of d e t e c t i o n of de c e p t i o n . T h i s q u e s t i o n might be c l o u d i n g the whole i s s u e of the e f f i c i e n c y of d e t e c t i o n of decept i o n . Drug E f f e c t s : As c o u l d be guessed from the review of drug s t u d i e s (Chapter 1 ) , no p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s were found f o r diazepam e i t h e r at a t o n i c or r e a c t i v e l e v e l . Although the o v e r a l l F t e s t was s l i g h t l y s i g n i f i c a n t (see R e s u l t s ) , none of the m u l t i p l e comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . S u b j e c t s who had in g e s t e d diazepam showed s i m i l a r heart and r e s p i r a t i o n r a t e s , t o n i c s k i n conductance l e v e l s and sk i n conductance responses as the other s u b j e c t s . Our review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s that a s u i t a b l e w a i t i n g 100 p e r i o d was used f o r the dose employed. The one main drug e f f e c t found f o r the diazepam group was that they seemed to be aware of the f a c t that they had taken some diazepam (see F i g u r e 12). T h i s c l e a r l y argues f o r a diazepam e f f e c t which was probalby mediated c e n t r a l l y , not at the autonomic l e v e l . The r e s u l t s f o r the methylphenidate group are s i m i l a r i n that few, i f any, p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s were found. U n l i k e s u b j e c t s i n other groups who maintained a f a i r l y constant r e s p i r a t i o n time, s u b j e c t s i n the methylphenidate group i n c r e a s e d the time r e q u i r e d to complete 15 c y c l e s of r e s p i r a t i o n as the i n t e r r o g a t i o n progressed. These r e s u l t s must be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n , however, s i n c e the c o n d i t i o n s d u r i n g which the measurement was taken at the beginning were not n e c e s s a r i l y e q u i v a l e n t to those at the end; d i f f e r e n t amounts of a c t i v i t y (e.g., t a l k i n g ) were e x h i b i t e d by s u b j e c t s at these times. Once again,, though, there i s some proof of a drug e f f e c t which can be found i n the measure of s e l f - r e p o r t e d s t a t e - a n x i e t y (see F i g u r e 2) t h i s time. One p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s that methylphenidate s u b j e c t s d i d not experience the decrease i n a r o u s a l that s u b j e c t s i n the other group f e l t a f t e r s i t t i n g i n a comfortable c h a i r f o r approximately one-half hour and engaging i n a r e p e t i t i o u s task (the i n t e r r o g a t i o n ) . T h e r e f o r e , i t seems that with the dose employed and the w a i t i n g p e r i o d used, the only e f f e c t of methylphenidate was a l s o c e n t r a l l y mediated. Due to the p a u c i t y of data on the metabolism of methylphenidate, 101 there i s no way of knowing whether t h i s i s i n p a r t due to these two f a c t o r s short of conducting a dose-response study with methylphenidate. These r e s u l t s q u i t e o b v i o u s l y c o n f l i c t with those obtained by Waid et a l . (1981). The methodological d i f f e r e n c e s in between these two s t u d i e s might be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n . F i r s t , the type of drug used might be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i f f e r e n c e : perhaps meprobamate has a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t than diazepam and does indeed i n f l u e n c e autonomic a c t i v i t y . The experimental manipulation was a l s o q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . Perhaps the use of a v a l i d a t e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l combined with more s a l i e n t c r i t i c a l s t i m u l i would have r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s f o r Waid et a l . O b v i o u s l y , a f o l l o w - u p study should be done to r e s o l v e G u i l t E f f e c t s : The r e s u l t s o b tained i n t h i s a n a l y s i s (see p r e v i o u s chapter) showed no a r o u s a l d i f f e r e n c e s between g u i l t y and innocent s u b j e c t s . In f a c t , these s u b j e c t s were found to be s i m i l a r on both s e l f - r e p o r t ( s t a t e a n x i e t y ) and p h y s i o l o g i c a l ( t o n i c heart r a t e , t o n i c s k i n conductance, r e s p i r a t i o n r a t e , number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s ) measures. Thus, one might suggest that innocent and g u i l t y s u b j e c t s d i f f e r only i n t h e i r r e a c t i v i t y to c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . ) The h i t r a t e obtained confirms the f a c t that innocent and g u i l t y s u b j e c t s d i d indeed d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e a c t i v i t y to the c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r each of the ten q u e s t i o n s ( a l s o , see Appendix F1 -10) . In other words, i t seems that 102 in the experimental s i t u a t i o n at l e a s t , g u i l t y s u b j e c t s are not ov e r r i d d e n with g u i l t and/or f e a r . If they are, t h i s i s not measurable through the p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c measures obtained i n t h i s study. What seems more p l a u s i b l e i s that these s u b j e c t s r e a c t to the c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s with a g r e a t e r o r i e n t i n g response than do innocent s u b j e c t s . T h i s i s e a s i l y understood i n the G u i l t y Knowledge paradigm s i n c e an o r i e n t a t i o n r e a c t i o n to the s i g n a l stimulus ( i . e . , c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e ) , not a " l i e response" i s expected. T h i s might a l s o e x p l a i n why, w i t h i n the g u i l t y groups, responses to c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s tend to h a b i t u a t e over time (see F i g u r e 11). That i s not to say, though, that g u i l t and/or fear of d e t e c t i o n have no part to play i n t h i s response; on the c o n t r a r y , these f a c t o r s might be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r an added amount of v i g i l a n c e f o r the c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s i n the g u i l t y groups. Although these r e s u l t s seem q u i t e p l a u s i b l e i n the l i g h t of a l a b o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h i s does not mean that such r e s u l t s would be found i n a f i e l d s i t u a t i o n . One must r e a d i l y admit that i n the analog s i t u a t i o n , no matter how r e a l i s t i c one makes the crime s t i m u l u s , one cannot c r e a t e the atmosphere of a n x i e t y and apprehension that must e x i s t i n the f i e l d s i t u a t i o n . Even i f one c o u l d generate these i n the analog s i t u a t i o n , e t h i c a l concerns would p r o h i b i t the use of such methods. V a l i d a t i o n of Crime F i l m and I n t e r r o g a t i o n P r o t o c o l ; The r e s u l t s c i t e d i n the p r e v i o u s chapter c l e a r l y 103 i n d i c a t e that the crime videotape i s a v a l i d a l t e r n a t i v e to the mock crime i n an experimental s e t t i n g . F i r s t , i t p r e s e n t s the experimenter with an " u n c e r t a i n " s i t u a t i o n , that i s one i n which s/he has to decide whether or not a given s u b j e c t was a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the c r i t i c a l event. I t a l s o has the advantage of being more r e a l i s t i c than a mock crime s i n c e a c t u a l crimes can be d e p i c t e d . T h i s has the added bonus of i n c r e a s i n g the s u b j e c t s ' a t t e n t i o n and involvement in the experiment. T h i s was c l e a r l y demonstrated by the data given f o r the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n r e c a l l e d by g u i l t y s u b j e c t s . The v a l i d a t i n g approach to the i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l q u e s t i o n n a i r e can be used to ensure that the q u e s t i o n s asked can indeed be e a s i l y answered by persons viewing the f i l m only once. At the same time, one can t e s t the transparency of the p r o t o c o l by a d m i n i s t e r i n g a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e v e r s i o n to p i l o t s u b j e c t s who have not seen the crime vi d e o t a p e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e c a l l of c r i t i c a l knowledge and d e t e c t i o n was demonstrated by a moderate but very s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , s i m i l a r to that obtained by Waid et a l . (1978). I t i s q u i t e s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d a c o e f f i c i e n t of t h i s magnitude when one r e a l i z e s the small range of scores a v a i l a b l e f o r such a computation. T h i s new approach to inducing experimental " g u i l t " i n s u b j e c t s a l s o o f f e r s an e a s i e r way of p r o v i d i n g an e q u i v a l e n t task f o r "innocent" or c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . A videotape s i m i l a r i n l e n g t h and t o p i c , but without the occurence of the crime, can be made and shown to these 104 s u b j e c t s , e.g., f o r an armed bank robbery, one c o u l d d e p i c t an o r d i n a r y e x c u r s i o n to the bank. F i n a l l y , the videotaped crime has more f l e x i b i l i t y . I t i s now p o s s i b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i v e s a l i e n c e of d i f f e r e n t crimes i n d e t e c t i o n of decept i o n S t u d i e s can be designed to d i s c o v e r i f any a s p e c t s of crimes l e a d to e a s i e r d e t e c t i o n than others and a l s o , more i m p o r t a n t l y , whether the repeated o f f e n s e s of s i m i l a r or d i f f e r e n t crimes by the same i n d i v i d u a l a c t u a l l y reduce the p r o b a b i l i t y of that i n d i v i d u a l being d e t e c t e d i n a p o l y g r a p h i c i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Post-hoc F i n d i n g s : The use of d i f f e r e n t l engths of i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l should be s t u d i e d F u r t h e r . Although the data from F i g u r e 11 suggests that a more optimal l e n g t h of f i v e q u e s t i o n s f o r the p r o t o c o l would y i e l d b e t t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , post-hoc analyses d i d not support t h i s . H i t r a t e s were e q u i v a l e n t i n both s i t u a t i o n s . I f more s t u d i e s come to the same c o n c l u s i o n , there would s t i l l be a case f o r sho r t e n i n g i n t e r r o g a t i o n time, i f only f o r the sake of time e f f i c i e n c y . Future s t u d i e s should look at the p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions t h a t were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with g u i l t scores and the number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s . These i n c l u d e measures of w e l l - b e i n g , ambition and hard work f o r the number of s c o r a b l e q u e s t i o n s and measures of s o c i a l potency, a b s o r p t i o n (hypnotic s u c e p t i b i l i t y ) and tendency to c l a i m u n l i k e l y v i r t u e s f o r the g u i l t s c o f r e . 105 Although these f i n d i n g s are at best t e n t a t i v e , they do i n d i c a t e p o s s i b l e d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s . C o n c l u s i o n : T h i s study was designed to i n c o r p o r a t e a few changes i n t o the l a b o r a t o r y study of d e t e c t i o n of deception and a l s o to attempt a r e p l i c a t i o n of the Waid et a l . (1981) study. The i n n o v a t i o n s to the methodology of the study, which comprised a crime videotape and a v a l i d a t e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o t o c o l , proved to be q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l . No drug e f f e c t s were found though with the medications and doses employed i n t h i s study. I t i s f e l t that f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s would be necessary to determine i f indeed these drugs can have an e f f e c t on the human autonomic nervous system. 4 1 06 REFERENCES 107 108 AMAN,M.G., & WERRY, J.S. E f f e c t s of methylphenidate and h a l o p e r i d o l on the heart rate and blood pressure of hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n with s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to time of a c t i o n . Psychopharmacologia , 1975, 43, 163-168. ANDREASSI, J.L. Psychophysiology: human behavior and  p h y s i o l o g i c a l response New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1980. APPLETON, W.S. Fourth p s y c h o a c t i v e drug usage guide. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1982, 43, 12-27. APPLETON, W.S., & DAVIS, J.M. P r a c t i c a l C l i n i c a l  Psychopharmacology. B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s and W i l k i n s , 1980. ARTHUR, R.O. Non-rectors. J o u r n a l of Polygraph S t u d i e s , 1977, 1-4. BALLARD, J.E., BOILEAU, R.A., SLEATOR, E.K., MASSEY, B.H., & SPRAGUE, R.L. C a r d i o v a s c u l a r responses of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n to methylphenidate. J o u r n a l of the American  Me d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1976, 236: 2870-2874. BALLOUN, K., & HOLMES, D. E f f e c t s of repeated examinations on the a b i l i t y to de t e c t g u i l t with a p o l y g r a p h i c examination: A l a b o r a t o r y experiment with a r e a l crime. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1978, 64:316-322. BARLAND, G.H., & RASKIN, D.C. An e v a l u a t i o n of f i e l d t echniques i n d e t e c t i o n of de c e p t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1975, J_2: 321-329. BELT, J . , & HOLDEN, P. Polygraph usage among major U.S. C o r p o r a t i o n s . Personnel J o u r n a l , 1978, 80-86. ( i n LYKKEN, D.T. A Tremor i n the Blood. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1981.) BEN SHAKHAR, G., LIEBLICH, I., & KUGELMASS, S. G u i l t y Knowledge Technique: A p p l i c a t i o n of s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n measures. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1970, 5_4: 409-413. BERSH, P.J. A V a l i d a t i o n a l study of polygraph examiner judgements. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1969, 5_3: 399-403. BRADLEY, M.T., & JANISSE, M.P. Accuracy demonstrations, t h r e a t , and the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n : C a r d i o v a s c u l a r , e l e c t r o d e r m a l and p u p i l l a r y measures. Psychophysiology, 1 981 , J_8: 307-31 5. BUTTER, H.J., & LAPIERRE, Y.D. The e f f e c t of methylphenidate on c a r d i o v a s c u l a r sensory d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on the h y p e r k i n e t i c syndrome. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of  C l i n i c a l Pharmacology and Biopharmacology, 1975, _1J_: 309-314. 109 CLEMENS, T.L., & SELESNICK, S.T. P s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c a l methods f o r e v a l u a t i n g medications by repeated exposure to a s t r e s s o r f i l m . Diseases of the Nervous System, 1967, 8: 98-104. COHEN, N.J., DOUGLAS, V.I., & MORGENSTERN, G. The e f f e c t s of methylphenidate on a t t e n t i v e behavior and autonomic a c t i v i t y i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Psychopharmacologia, 1971, 22: 282-294. CUTROW, R.J., PARKS, A., LUCAS, N., & THOMAS, K. The o b j e c t i v e use of m u l t i p l e p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s i n the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1972, 9: 578-588. DANIELSEN, A., HAFFNER, J.F.W., MORLAND, J . , SETEKLEIV, J . , FRIVIK, P.T., & STROMSAETHER, C.E. E f f e c t s of diazepam and ethanol on heart r a t e and g a l v a n i c i n responses. Acta  Pharmacologica and T o x i c o l o q i c a , 1975, 3_6_: 113-122. DAVIDSON, P.O. V a l i d i t y of the G u i l t y Knowledge technique: The e f f e c t s of m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1968, 52: 62-65. DAWSON, M.E. P h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n : Measurement of responses to q u e s t i o n s and answers d u r i n g countermeasure maneuvers. Psychophysiology, 1980, _1_7: 8-17. DIXON, W.I., & BROWN, M.B. computer program P - S e r i e s . C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1979. (eds.) BMDP-79: Biomedical Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of GAILLARD, A.W., & TRUMBO, D.A. Drug e f f e c t s on heart r a t e and heart r a t e v a r i a b i l i t y d u r i n g a prolonged r e a c t i o n task. Ergonomics, 1976, _1_9: 591-609. GERMANN, A.C. Hypnosis as r e l a t e d to s c i e n t i f i c d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n by polygraph examination: A p i l o t study. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l and Exper imental  Hypnosis, 1961, 9: 309-311. GIESEN, M., & ROLLISON, M.A. G u i l t y Knowledge versus innocent a s s o c i a t i o n s : E f f e c t s of t r a i t a n x i e t y and stimulus context on s k i n conductance. J o u r n a l of Research  in P e r s o n a l i t y , 1980, J_4: 1-11. GOODMAN, L., & GILMAN, A. The Pharmacologic b a s i s of  t h e r a p e u t i c s . 1975. GREENBERG, L.M., & YELLIN, A.M. Blood pressure and pul s e changes i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n t r e a t e d with imipramine and methylphenidate. American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , 1975, 132: 1325-1326. GREENBLATT, D.J., & SHADER, R. Benzodiazepines. New 110 England J o u r n a l of Medicine, 1974, 29±: 1011-1015, 1239-1 243. GUSTAFSON, L.A., & ORNE, M.T. E f f e c t s of heightened m o t i v a t i o n on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Psychology, 1963, £7: 408-411. GUSTAFSON, L.A., £. ORNE, M.T. The e f f e c t s of task and method of stimulus p r e s e n t a t i o n on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 1964, 48: 383-387. GUSTAFSON, L.A., & ORNE, M.T. E f f e c t s of p e r c e i v e d r o l e and r o l e success on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Psychology, 1965a, 49: 412-417. GUSTAFSON, L.A., & ORNE, M.T. The e f f e c t s of v e r b a l responses on the l a b o r a t o r y d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1965b, 2: 10-13. HARE, R.D., & COX, D.N. C l i n i c a l and e m p i r i c a l conceptions of psychopathy, and the s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s f o r r e s e a r c h . In HARE, R.D., & SCHALLING, D. (Eds.), Psychopathic behaviour: Approaches to r e s e a r c h . New York: Wiley, 1978. HILLESTAD, L., & HANSEN, T. Diazepam metabolism i n healthy s u b j e c t s and p a t i e n t s with heart f a i l u r e , r e n a l f a i l u r e and h e p a t i c c i r r h o s i s . In SALETU, B., BERNER, P., & HOLLISTER, L. (Ed s . ) , Neuro-psychopharmacology: Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the Collegium  I n t e r n a t i o n a l e Neuro-psychopharmacologium. Toronto: Plenum, 1978. H i r i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e upsets m i n i s t e r . Vancouver Sun, May 8, 1982. HOLDER, G.E., JONES, I.A., & HARPING, G.F. Proceedings: A q u a n t i t a t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the e f f e c t s of carbamazepine, diazepam and q u i n a l b a r b i t o n e on the EEG and v i s u a l evoked p o t e n t i a l i n man. Electroencephalography and  C l i n i c a l Neurophysiology, 1975, 39: 430. HORVATH, F.S., & REID, J.E. The r e l i a b i l i t y of polygraph examiner d i a g n o s i s of t r u t h and d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of  C r i m i n a l Law, Criminology and P o l i c e Science, 1971, 62: 276-281. HULL, C.H., & NIL, N.H. (Eds.), SPSS Updates 7-9: New procedure and f a c i l i t i e s f o r r e l e a s e s 7-9. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1981. HUNTER, F.L., & ASH, P. The accuracy and c o n s i s t e n c y of polygraph examiners' diagnoses. J o u r n a l of P o l i c e Science  and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 1973, j_: 370-375. 111 KAZDIN, A.E. Research.design i n c l i n i c a l psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. KLEINMUNTZ, B., & SZUCKO, J . J . A f i e l d study of human and s t a t i s t i c a l d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . I_n p r e s s . KUGELMASS, S., & LIEBLICH, I. E f f e c t s of r e a l i s t i c s t r e s s and p r o c e d u r a l i n t e r f e r e n c e i n experimental l i e d e t e c t i i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1966, 50: 211-KUGELMASS, S., LIEBLICH, I., & BERGMAN, Z. The r o l e of " l y i n g " i n p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e c t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1967, 3: 312-315. LEVINSEN, A.J. Basic psychopharmacology. New York: S p r i n g e r , 1981. LIEBLICH, I. BEN SHAKHAR, G., & KUGELMASS, S. V a l i d i t y of the G u i l t y Knowledge technique i n a p r i s o n e r ' s sample. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1976, 6J_: 89-93. LYKKEN, D.T. The GSR i n the d e t e c t i o n of g u i l t . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Psychology, 1959, 43: 385-388. LYKKEN, D.T. The v a l i d i t y of the G u i l t y Knowledge technique: The e f f e c t s of f a k i n g . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Psychology, 1960, 44: 258-262. LYKKEN, D.T. S t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 7_0: 151-159. LYKKEN, D.T. Psychology and the L i e Detector i n d u s t r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1974, 29: 725-739. LYKKEN, D.T. Uses and abuses of the polygraph. In PICK et a l . (Eds.) Psychology. New York: Plenum, 1978. LYKKEN, D.T. A Tremor i n the blood. New York: McGraw h i l l , 1981 . LYKKEN, D.T., & VENABLES, P.H. D i r e c t measurement of skin-conductance: A Proposal f o r s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1971, 8: 656-672. MARJERRISON, G., NEUFELDT, A.H., HOLMES, V., & HO, T. Comparative p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c a l and mood e f f e c t s of diazepam and dipotassium c l o r a z e p a t e . B i o l o g i c a l  P s y c h i a t r y , 1973, 7: 31-41. MASUDA, M., & BARKER, C. P e r s o n a l i t y , catecholamine m e t a b o l i t e s and p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c a l response to diazepam. J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r i c Research, 1966, 4: 222-234. PODLESNY, J.A., & RASKIN, D.C. E f f e c t i v e n e s s of techniques and p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures i n the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . 1 1 2 Psychophysiology, 1978, 344:359. RASKIN, D.C., & HARE, R.D. Psychopathy and the d e t e c t i o n of deception i n a p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1978, J_5: 126-1 36. SATTERFIELD, J.H., & DAWSON, M.E. E l e c t r o d e r m a l c o r r e l a t e s of h y p e r a c t i v i t y i n c h i l d r e n . Psychophysiology, 1971, 8: 191-197. SPIELBERGER, CD., GORSUCH, R.L., & LUSHENE, R.E. STAI  Manual f o r the S t a t e - T r a i t Anxiety Inventory. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s , 1970. SPRING, C , GREENBERG, G.L., SCOTT, J . , & HOPWOOD, J . E l e c t r o d e r m a l a c t i v i t y i n h y p e r a c t i v e boys who are methylphenidate responders. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11: 436-442. SZUCKO, J . J . , & KLEINMUNTZ, B. S t a t i s t i c a l versus c l i n i c a l l i e d e t e c t i o n . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1981, 36: 488-496. TELLEGEN, A. The P i f f e r e n t i a l P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Unpublished manual. U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1976. THACKRAY, R.J., & ORNE, M.T. A comparison of. p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i c e s i n d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1968, 4: 324-339. TIMM, H.W. The e f f e c t of placebos and feedback on the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. WAID, W.T., & ORNE, M.T. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n e l e c t r o d e r m a l l a b i l i t y and the d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of Appl i e d Psychology, 1980, 6_5: 1-8. WAID, W.T., ORNE, E . C , COOK, M.R., '& ORNE, M.T. E f f e c t s of a t t e n t i o n , as indexed by subsequent memory, on el e c t r o d e r m a l d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Psychology, 1978, 63: 728-733. WAID, W.T., ORNE, E . C , COOK, M.R., & ORNE, M.T. Meprobamate reduces accuracy of p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e c t i o n of de c e p t i o n . S c i e n c e , 1981, 212: 71-73. WAID,'W.TV, ORNE, M.T., & WILSON, S.K. E f f e c t s of l e v e l of s o c i a l i z a t i o n on e l e c t r o d e r m a l d e t e c t i o n of d e c e p t i o n . Psychophysiology, 1 979, jhS: 15-22. WEINSTEIN, E., ABRAMS, S., & GIBBONS, D. The v a l i d i t y of the polygraph with h y p n o t i c a l l y induced r e p r e s s i o n and g u i l t . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , 1970, 126: 1159-1 162. WICK-LANDER, D.E., £ HUNTER, F.L. The i n f l u e n c e of 1 13 a u x i l i a r y sources of i n f o r m a t i o n i n polygraph diagnoses, J o u r n a l of P o l i c e Science and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1975, 3: 405-409. WRETLIND, M., PI BRANT, A., SUNDWALL, A., & VESSMUN, J . D i s p o s i t i o n of three benzodiazepines a f t e r s i n g l e o r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n man. Acta Pharmacologica and  T o x i c o l o q i c a , S u p p l . O ) , 1977, £0: 28-39. ZAHN, T.P., ABATE, F., LITTLE, B.C., 6.WENDER, P.H. Minimal B r a i n D y s f u n c t i o n , s t i m u l a n t drugs, and autonomic nervous system a c t i v i t y . A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y , 1975, 32: 381-387. ZAHN, T.P., RAPOPORT, J.L., & THOMPSON, C.L. Autonomic and b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s of dextroamphetamine i n normal and h y p e r a c t i v e p r e p u b e r t a l boys. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Chi Id  Psychology, 1980, 8 : 145-160. 1 1 4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Al CRIME QUESTIONNAIRE ( l 0 Male Female 1. I f you are g u i l t y of thl3 crime, then you know the number of the apartment that was burglarised. Was i t a) 418? b) 206? c) 112? d) 307? e) 502? 2. A radio-alarm clock was stolen from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know where i n the apartment t h i s radio was located. Was i t on a) the floor? b) a night-table? c) • tha dresser? d) the stereo? a) the kitchen counter? 3. Some stereo equipment was taken from t h i s apavtment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what t h i s stereo equipment was. Was i t a) speakers"?' b) a cassette deck? c) & turntable? d) an amplifier? e) a receiver? 4. There was a poster on one of tha walls of the apartment that depicted one or more people engaged i n a sport. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what sport was represented i n the poster. Was i t a) basketball? b) skiing? c) tennis? d) sky diving? e) windsurfing? 5. Something that was on the speaker close to the chair i n the l i v i n g room was stolen. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was stolen. Was i t a) a lamp? b) a book? c) a brass urn? d) some binoculars? e) a jewelry box? 6. A musical instrument was taken from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what that instrument was. Was i t a) a recorder? b) a guitar? c) an harmonica? d) a flut e ? e) a v i o l i n ? . I t 7 - 2 -t I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you would hsva noticed an unusual object on the bookcase. Was i t a) a baby d o l l ? b) a piggy bank? c) a rubber duck? d) a model airplane? e) a stethoscope? There was a t r e v e l poster oa one of the walls of the apartment. Iff you are the g u i l t y persott* theu yoa kaow which country was depicted in the poster. Was i t a) Italy? b) Japan? c> Mexico? d) Spain? e) Morocco? Something valuable was taken from the dining room table. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what t h i s valuable item was. Has i t a) a television? b) an antique dock? c) a stamp collection? d) a gold pen? e) s i l v e r candlesticks? Some jewelry was .stolen from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was stolen. Was i t a) a brooch? b) a pearl necklace? c) jade earrings? d) a cross and chain? e) a diamond ring? Something was stolen from a wallet found i n the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y persons then you know what was stolen from the wallet. Was i t a) a photograph? b) a key? c) money? d) credit cards? e) a blank cheque? Another item was stolen from the apartment. ' I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what that i s . Was i t a) a toaster? b) stereo headphones? c) a coin bank? d) a portable typewriter? e) a marble statuette? US - 3 -13. Something was deliberately broken during the coaissioa of the crime. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was broken. Was i t a* a) window? b) clock? c) bottle? d) lamp? e) picture frame? 14. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know the approximate time of the crime. Was i t a) 12:30? b) 3:00? e) 2:45? d) 1:20? e) 11:15? 15. A camera was stolen from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what brand of camera i t was. Was i t a) Yashica? b> Nikon? c) Canon? d) Minolta? e) Pentax? 16. Something was stolen from a bag i n the closet. I f you ere the g u i l t y person, then you know what that was. Was i t a) a t r a v e l k i t ? b) s microphone? e) a passport? d) t r a v e l l e r ' s cheques? e) plane tickets? 17. I f you are the g u i l t y parson, then you know what was stalew from the closet. Was i t a) a yogurt-maker? b) an e l e c t r i c d r i l l ? c) a fur coat? d) a s l i d e projector? e) a gun? 13. Some sporting equipment was taken from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was taken. Was i t a) a motorcycle helmet? b) a tennis racket? c) s k i boots? d) a down vest? e) a baseball glove? - 4 -19. An act of vandalism was committed during the course of the crime. If you are the guilty person, then you know what happened. Was i t that a) some crystal glasses were broken? b) a message was written on the wall? c) books were thrown on the floor? d) some liquor was spilled on the carpet? e) the contents of some drawers were thrown about? AZ l 1, o NUMBER OF ITEMS CORRECTLY GUESSED FREQUENCY OF CORRECT GUESSING PER ITEM: ITEM F(OUT OF 20~) ITEM FCs 1 10 12 5 2 1 13 9 3 6 14 1 4 2 15 8 5 5 16 2 6 2 17 4 7 3 7 8 1 8 2 7 9 7 9 1 20 11 7 0 12 21 1 11 1 22 1 1 A3 CRXMB QUESTIO^WAIRE MAL?-; FEMALE ______ Pleast. print your answers legibly . 1. Apartment monber: .  2. Location of radio-alarm clock: 3. Stolen stereo equipment: ,, 4. Sports Poster: 5. Stolen item: 6. Stolen musical instrument: _ 7. Unusual object ov. bookcase: 8. Travel Poster: _____ 9. Stolen Item: 10. Stolen Jewelry: 11. Stolen Item from Wallet: 12. Stolen Item: 13. Broken Item: , 14. Time of Crime: 15. Brand name of camera: ,.. 16. Stolen item from bag: . 17. Stolen item from bottom closet: 18. Sporting equipment: ; 19. Act of vandalism: ___ 20. Stolen credit cards: A4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 N OF ITEMS CORRECTLY ANSWERED • FREQUENCY OF CORRECT ANSWERS PER ITEM: ITEM FC /36) ITEM FC/36-) 1 35 1 1 36 2 33 12 '33 3 30 13 •36 4 24 •14 (j 27 5 • 32 15 \32 6 35 '16 < i 29 7 16 17 23 8 30 18 35 9 31 '19 30 10 31 20 36 A__ IHTERRORATIOH PROTOCOL 1 . I f you are g u i l t y og t h i s c r ime , then you know the number of the apartment thut was b u r g l a r i z e d . Was i t . . . a) 418? b) 206? c) 112? d) ?07? e) 502? 2. A r ad i o -a l a rm c l o ck waa 3 t o i e n from the apartment. I f you are g u i l t y of t h i n c r ime, then you know where i n the apartment t h i s r ad i o waa l o c a t e d . Was i t . „« a) on the f l o u r ? b) on the s te reo? c) on the d resse r ? d) on a n i g h t - t a b l e ? e) on the k i t c h e n counter? 3. Something tha t was on the speaker c l o se to the c h a i r i n the l i v i n g room waa s t o l e n . I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was s t o l e n : Waa i t . . . a) a lamp? b) a book? c) a brass urn? d) some b i no cu l a r s ? e) a j ewe l ry box? 4 . A mus i ca l instrument waa taken from the apartment. I f you a re the g u i l t y person, then you know what tha t instrument waa. W a s - i t . . . a) a recorder? b) a guitai-7 c) i: harmonica? d) a f l u t e ? e) a v i o l i n ? 5. Something va l uab l e was taken from the d i n i n g room t a b l e . I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what that v a l u ab l e i tem waa. Waa i t . . . a) a t e l e v i s i o n ? b) an ant ique c l o c k ? c) a stamp c o l l e c t i o n ? d) a gold pen? e) s i l v e r c a n d l e s t i c k s ? 6. Some j ewe l r y was s t o l e n from the apartment. I f you are the g u i l t y person, then you know what was s t o l e n . Was i t . . . a) a brooch? b) a p ea r l neck lace? c) jade ea r r i ng s ? d) a c ross and cha in? e) a diamond r i ng ? . \ A 5 cont'd: . 7. Something was 3tolen from a wallet found in the apartment. If you are the guilty person, then you know what was stolen from the wallet. Was i t . . . a) a photograph? d) a blank cheque? e; credit cards? 8. Something was deliberately broken during the commission of the crime. If you are the gui l ty person, then you know what was broken. Was i t . a) a window? b) an alarm clock? c) a bottle? d) a larup? . e) a picture fraine? 9. A camera was stolen from the apartment. If you are the gui l ty person, then you know what brand of camera i t was. Was i t o . . a) a Yashica? b) a Nikon? c) a Pentax? d) a Minolta? e) a Canon? 1 0 . Some sporting equipemrit was taken from the apartment. If you are the guilty person, then you know what was taken. Was i t . . . a) a Qotorcycle helmet? b) a tennis racket? c) ski boots? d) a down vest? e) a baseball glove? APPENDIX B e AVAILABILITY FORM Participation in this study w i l l require approximately 2 hours of your time. Please indicate below possible 2-hour time blocks during which you are available" e.g., Monday, 12?30 to 3;30 p.m. If you are also available during the early evening or on the weekend (days only), please indicate this. I am free at the following times °-morning afternoon early evening Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Please Indicate times. I can be reached at the following number(s) at the following time(s): phone number: , time: • phone number: , time: . . >.asv-. •.; Lnt NAMK (please print legibly): University of British Columbia Medical Survey In order that you may safely participate in this study, we need to have some information about your general health. Please answer the following questions by f i l l i n g in the blank, or putting a tick in the appropriate box. Thank you for your cooperation. A l l information will be kept confidential. YF,S MO In the past two years, have you been under the care of a I ]. I j physician for any medical condition(s)? L _ J i I If yes, and i f known, what is (are) the condition(s)? 2. Have you ever been under,:a doctor's care for emotional i 1 I j or nervous problems (depressions anxiety, etc.)? j | ( J If yes, are you currently in treatment? j J j 3. Have you ever had any unusual drug reactions, drug | j j j allergies, or allergies of any kind? ! ' I I 4. Have you ever had any of the following conditions-Seizures or loss of consciousness? 1 ] 1 1 Persistent headaches? j [ j | (_ ( Dizziness? j | I ) Problems with vision or glaucoma? I . , • (excluding near- or far-sightedness) j j I I Persistent muscle weakness (myasthenia)? 5. How many drinks of alcohol do you have each week on average? (Give numbers for a, b, and c.) a) bottles of beer/week b) glasses of wine/week c) 1.5 ounce glasses of liquor/week - Page ?. 6. Do you use the following drugs? a) Ma.ior tranquilizers (Mellaril, Thorazine, Largactil 3 Stelazine, etc.) b) Minor tranquilizers (Valium, Librium, Serax, ; Librax, etc.) c) Barbiturates/sedatives (Amytal, Nembutal„ Phenobarbitol, etc) d) Amphetamines, stimulants (Benzedrine, Biphetamine, Ritalin, Desoxyn, Dexedrine, Methedrine, etc.) e) Others (Hashish, Cocaine, Hallucinogens) - Underline appropriate choices or specify: About how often? NEVER ONCE A YEAR ONCE A MONT'-l ONCE A WEE1 • • • • • • • • 1 1 • • • • • • • o • • • APPENDIX C CI HANDEDNESS SCALE \ 2. o Name Date INSTRUCTIONS: P l e a s e p i c t u r e y o u r s e l f d o i n g each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s ( e . g . , t h r o w i n g s o m e t h i n g , u s i n g s c i s s o r s , s t r i k i n g a match) and t h e n d e c i d e how s t r o n g l y you p r e f e r t o use y o u r r i g h t ( o r l e f t ) hand f o r t h e p u r p o s e . S c o r e y o u r s e l f 1 t o 5 on each i t e m , u s i n g t h e s c a l e shown below. / 1 / / / L e f t hand o n l y L e f t hand p r e f e r r e d E i t h e r hand (no p r e f e r e n c e ) R i g h t hand p r e f e r r e d R i g h t hand o n l y EXAMPLE: In u s i n g a broom, I u s u a l l y have my r i g h t hand on t h e h a n d l e above my l e f t , b u t n o t a l w a y s . Hence, I -score m y s e l f '4' on t h i s i t e m . • • 1. Wri t i ng 2. Drawing 3. T h r o w i n g 4. S c i s s o r s = ' 5. T o o t h b r u s h 6. K n i f e ( w i t h o u t f o r k ) • 7. Spoon 8. Broom ( u p p e r hand) 9. S t r i k i n g Match (hand h o l d i n g match) 10. Opening Box (hand h o l d i n g l i d ) TOTAL How do you w r i t e ? ( s e e p i c t u r e ) LN L I R l RN ( C i r c l e one) C2 RATING OF. t)RTK? gTATTTS A. W O R K W . I N m R O C A T I O y r t I f e e l that the sub ject has taken: a) Seme dsn*;? 1 2 3 4 5 yea probably unsure probably not no b) diazepam: 1 2 3 4 5 yes probably unsure probably not no c) Methylphenidate: 1 7 , 3 4 yes probably unsure probably not B. AFTKR T^ re IHTORROGATIOHt I f e e l that the subject has taken: a) Some drug: 1 2 3 4 5 yes probably unsure probably not no b) niasepamr 1 3 3 4 5 yes probably unsure probably net no c) Methylphenidate: 1 I 3 4 yes probably unsure probably not C3 RRCALL OF CRITICAL ^ TOWnyjT, - A Subject I . 3 > . ? : _ Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you are not sure about an answer, write i t down anyways. 1. What was the number of the apartment that was broken into: '-. ANSWER: ; •  2. A radio-alarm clock was stolen from the apartment. Where, in the apartment, was this radio-alarm clock located? ANSWER: 3. There was a poster on one of the walls of the apartment that depicted one or more people engaged in a sport. What was that sport? ANSWER: 4. Something that was cm the speaker close to the chair in the living room was stolen. What was it? ANSWER: 5. A musical instrument was taken from the apartment. What was it? ANSWiat: •  6. There was an unusual object on the bookcase. What was it? ANSWER: . 7. There was a travel poster on one of the walls of the apartment. Which country was depicted? ANSWER: 8. Something valuable was taken from the dining room table. What was it? ANSWER: 9. Some jewelry was" stolen from the apartment. What was it? ANSWER: lO. Something was stolen from a wallet found in the apartment. What was it? ANSWER: 11. Something was deliberately broken during the commission of the crime. What was it? ANSWER: 1 2 . At what time, approximately, did the crime take place? ATOTOBR: . , , . [ 1 3 . A camera was stolen from the apartment. What brand of camera was i t ? ' ANSWER: . ; 14. What was stolen from the bottom rif»ht-hand corner of the closet? A^SWRRj 1 5 . Some sporting equipment was taken from the apartment. ANSWER: What was i t ? C4 j RECALL OF CRITICAL ^ OWLEnGE - R 13,4 ?TOW1 »' PART I - Please attempt to figure out the correct alternative to each of the following questions. C i r c l e the appropriate choice. !>o not leave ©ny questions unanswered. 1. What was the number of the apartment that was broken into? a) 41* b) fM c) 112 d) 307 e) 502 2. A radio-alarm clock was stolen from the apartment. Where, in the apartment, was t h i s radio-alarm clock located? Was i t on a) the floor? b) a night-table? c) the dresser? d) the stereo? e) the kitchen counter? 3. Something that was on the speaker close to the c h a i r i n the l i v i n g ro®a was stolen. What was i t ? a) a lamp? b) a bo©k? c) a brass urn? d) some binoculars? e) a .1 ewelry box? 4. A wueieel instrument was t&t&n fg®m the apertnsenf. wao l e a) a recorder? b) a guitar? c) an harmonica? d) a f l u t e ? e) a v i o l i n ? 5. Something valuable was taken from the dining room table. Was i t ( a) a tele v i s i o n ? ' b) an satiqua clock? c) a stamp collection? d) a gold pen? e) s i l v e r caadelstiefes? 6. Some Jewelry was stolen f r a a felt® apartmo^. Waa i t a) a brooch? b) a pearl necklace? c) jad® earrings? ' * d) a, cross and chain? e) a diamond ring? 1 3 5 - 2 -7. Something was stolen from a wallet found in the apartment. Was i t a) a photograph? b) a key? c) money? d) a blank cheque? e) credit cards? 8. Something was deliberately broken during the commission of the crime. Was i t a) a window? b) a clock? c) a bottle? d) a lamp? e) a picture frame? 9. A camera was stolen from the apartment. What brand of camera was it? a) Yashica? b) Nikon? c) Pentax? d) Minolta? e) Canon? 10. Some sporting equipment was taken from the apartment. Was i t a) ^ a motorcycle helmet? b) a tennis racket? e) aki boots? d) a down vest? ^ e) a baseball glove? PART II - The following questions.pertain to the film segment which you did see. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. 1. What was the number of the apartment that you visited? ANSWER: .  2. What unusual object did you see on the bed? AT<JSWER: ' • ; . 3. What time did the alarm clock on the dresser indicate? ANSWER: _ A. One of the water, faucets in the apartment was dripping. Which faucet was it? ANSWER: _______________ ' . i 5<o - 3 -5. How many pots were on the stove i n the kitchen? ANSWER; • . 6. What was l y i n g on top of the stereo, next to the plant? ANSWER: ; ; ,  7. Was the t e l e v i s i o n set turned on or off? ANSWER: •  8. What unusual object did you see between the dining room table and the s&ereo? ANSWER: • • • • 9. How many people had eaten at the dining room table? ANSWER: . ; . . 10. What was written on the l a s t sign that you saw aft e r leaving the apartment? ANSWER: C5 *&7 TOIM ATTRIBUTB HATING Subject X.T>.#; Please c i r c l e the number corresponding to your choice of an answer for each of the following two questions. 1. How confident are you that this l i e detection technique can accurately detect guilt or innocence? (Circle one alternative.) not at a l l confident not very confident 3 mildly confident 4 f a i r l y confident very confident 2. Given that this technique i s accurate, how much confidence did you have in the s k i l l of the polygrapher? (Circle one alternative.) not at a l l confident 2 not very confident 3 mildly confident. 4. f a i r l y confident very confident 3 . How confident are you that the polygrapher was truly blind; i.e., unaware of which film you had seen before he started interrogating you? (Circle one alternative.) not at a l l confident not very confident 3 mildly confidant 4 f a i r l y confident 5 very confident 4. Drug Status: 1 feel that I have beaa given (c i r c l e one alternative for each category): — — a. Some drug: 1 (Valium or Ritalin) yes b. Valium: 1 (a mild tranquilizer) yes c. R i t a l i n 1 (a mild stimulant) yes 2 probably p-.ababiy probably 3 unsure 3 unsure 3 unsure probably not 4 probably not 4 probably not 5 no 5 no 5 no APPENDIX D D Consent Form I have been asked to participate in a study in which I will be asked to perform a certain task. I may also be asked to ingest a p i l l . The p i l l will either be a placebo which contains no drug or a completely safe, active medica-tion that may exert a very mild sedating or stimulating effect. Afterwards, ray body's physiological responses will be recorded while I respond to some questions. Electrodes will be attached to my fingertips to measure skin con-ductance and on my arms or chest to measure heart rate. A belt around my chest will monitor respiration. I understand that there is nothing dangerous or harmful about these procedures and that a l l information obtained in this project will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of this study. By signing this form, I agree to participate although I realize I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without prejudice. At the conclusion of this experiment, you will s t i l l , to some extent, be under the influence of the medication we have given you. During this time, you should avoid hazards that require mental alertness such as operating machinery or driving a motor vehicle. Also, you should refrain from taking any other drugs or alcohol. Signature Date Study I.J).it m o APPENDIX E APPENDIX EJ_ You are about to see a videotape showing the i n s i d e of an apartment. Your task i s to watch t h i s f i l m segment as c a r e f u l l y as p o s s i b l e . You are to pay as much a t t e n t i o n as p o s s i b l e to a l l d e t a i l s shown. No t i c e where t h i n g s are l o c a t e d and the general layout of the apartment. Your memory fo r such d e t a i l s may be t e s t e d afterwards and you may a l s o be e l i g i b l e to get some money i n r e t u r n f o r good r e c a l l . APPENDIX E2 U n f o r t u n a t e l y , you match the d e s c r i p t i o n of someone who b u r g l a r i z e d an apartment and s t o l e some o b j e c t s . The p o l i c e have p i c k e d you up. They have no hard evidence that you committed t h i s crime, so they have informed you t h a t i f you can pass a l i e d e t e c t o r t e s t , they w i l l l e t you o f f the hook. In one h a l f - h o u r , a polygrapher w i l l accuse you of the crime and take you to a room where he w i l l a t t a c h you to a l i e d e t e c t o r . I t i s very important that you don't mention anything of what has happened so f a r to the polygrapher when he comes to get you. Please do not ask him any q u e s t i o n s . If you succeed i n appearing innocent on the l i e d e t e c t i o n t e s t , not only w i l l you r e g a i n your r e p u t a t i o n , but you w i l l a l s o earn $5.00. THE END E3 TAP?: * - rvrt^.Tjfrriovs TTow that the film i s finished and you've turned off the television and playback unit, please go get the polygrapher i n the coffee room ( 4 % ) which i s 1 doors dorm to your ri<»ht. He has a few personality tests he wants you to f i l l out before he interrogates'ycu. sure not to mention «*_>yJthjLng_ of what you have seen. A l l your questions w i l l be answered at the end of the exper3.ment. •"lease go get the polygrapher right away. P.S. Tear this sheet up and throw i t in the wastebasket. 1 4 4 APPENDIX EJ4 We are p r e s e n t l y l i v i n g under d i f f i c u l t economic times. Money i s hard to come by; jobs are s c a r c e and d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n . You have decided that you are w a i s t i n g your time as a student and would do b e t t e r to apply, your t a l e n t s to another type of o c c u p a t i o n . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that you have decided to do an a p p r e n t i c e s h i p with a master t h i e f . You are not the only student who has decided to do t h i s ; there i s a l o t of c o m p e t i t i o n . In order to t e s t your worth as a t h i e f , the master t h i e f has asked you to b u r g a l r i z e an apartment which he has p r e v i o u s l y cased. To succeed as an a p p r e n t i c e and be guaranteed a p r o f i t a b l e c a r e e r as a t h i e f , you should s t e a l only v a l u a b l e items that w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to t r a c e . Besides c a r r y i n g out the t h e f t , you must a l s o pay c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n to where t h i n g s are l o c a t e d and the g e n e r a l l a y o u t of the apartment. When you report back to the master t h i e f , he w i l l ask you q u e s t i o n s about the apartment and about the s t o l e n items. E videotape you are about to watch d e p i c t s your b u r g l a r y of t h i s apartment. By watching t h i s tape c a r e f u l l y and l e t t i n g y o u r s e l f go, i t w i l l be as though you are seeing the crime as i f you are a c t u a l l y committing i t . Let y o u r s e l f go and imagine that you are about to break i n t o an apartment and rob i t . I f you perform your task w e l l , you w i l l not only succeed as an a p p r e n t i c e , but you w i l l a l s o earn a bonus of $5.00. GOOD LUCK 1 4 5 APPENDIX E±f U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a r e i s d e n t of the apartment b u i l d i n g you-j u s t b u r g l a r i z e d t o l d the p o l i c e he n o t i c e d someone meeting your d e s c r i p t i o n i n the b u i l d i n g at the time.of the crime. The p o l i c e have picked you up. They have no evidence that you committed the crime, so they have informed you that i f you can pass a l i e d e t e c t o r t e s t , they w i l l l e t you o f f the hook. So, you have been accused of the crime. In.a short while, a polygrapher w i l l a t t a c h you to a l i e d e t e c t o r machine and ask you q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to the crime you have committed. Of course, you must appear innocent d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . I t has been shown that some people can c o n t r o l t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses w e l l enough to f o o l the l i e d e t e c t o r . In order to h e l p you achieve t h i s g o a l , the master t h i e f has sent you a drug that may h e l p you to escape d e t e c t i o n . T h i s capsule i s i n the white envelope that you were given e a r l i e r . When you see the polygrapher, i t i s important that you not mention anything about the f a c t t h a t you have j u s t taken a p i l l . You must be very c a r e f u l not to g i v e y o u r s e l f away. You can best do t h i s by not a s k i n g any q u e s t i o n s . The master t h i e f has decided that he w i l l g ive one of the s t o l e n o b j e c t s to the person who, while remembering the most d e t a i l s l a t e r on, appears the most innocent d u r i n g the i n t e r r o g a t i o n . So, on top of the $5.00 you can earn by remembering d e t a i l s of the crime, you might a l s o win something v a l u a b l e . You have a h a l f - h o u r r e s t i n g p e r i o d < 4 < o before the polygrapher appears. THE END I H 7 E6 W- A - INSTRUCTIONS Wow that the film i s finished and you've turned off the television and playback unit, please take the capsule Included in this envelope. It w i l l help you fool the l i e detector test and give you a better chance at winning that special prize, You w i l l find a water container and some paper cups on the desk. Xs soon as you have taken the cansule, go get the polygrapher In the coffee room (436) which l a 1 doors down to your right. He has a few personality tests he wants you to f i l l out before he interrogates you. Be sure not to mention anything about what you have seen, and don't mention taking the capsule. A l l your questions w i l l be answered at the end of the experiment. coon LT7CR. R.S, Tear this sheet ur> and throw i t in the wastebasfcet. i 4 « APPENDIX F F Subject T.D. *t If your percentile score is low (i.e., <50), then the description on the l e f t applies more to you. 1 Percentiles Scale A - Low Does not seem particularly optimistic or happy, ^oes not seem to enjoy himself a great deal. SCale 7? - Low Is not easily upset or disturbed. Is not a worrier. Is emotionally steady. Scale A - frrgh Is happy, content, and optimistic. Enjoys l i f e and the things he i s doing. Is interested in a lot of things. Scale 3 - High Is easily upset. Tends to worry, tense or tired. Is nervous. Often seems Scale C - T.QV.T Often prefers to be alone. Seems to keep people at p distance, ^eeps thoughts anr" feelings to himself. Scale C - High Enjoy8 being with people, Seeks close relationship with others. Shares feelings and experiences with others. Scale T> Jxtyt Is not assertive, ^oes not seek leadership ro^.es. Does not like to be the cerfcer of attention. Scale E - Low Is not particularly ambitious. Is not a perfectionist. Does not push hira;elf very hard.. Scale F ~ Low Carefully plans things ahead. T>oes 'hings in an orderly and systematic way. Scale 0 - Low Avoids risky and dangerous adventures. Prefers physical iafety to excitement. Scale H - Low Is not turned on by art, music, nature. Is not -particularly interested In fantasy, dreams, and Imaginative experience. Seals 7) - High-Is assertive. Takes the Initiative in social situations. Is good at persuading people. Enjoys being the center of attention. Scale E - High Is a hard v?orker. Sets high standard of achievement for him-self. Pushes himself hard. Scale F -• High Often acts on the spur of the moment. Does not li k e to plan ahead. Is freewheeling and impulsive. Scale q - High Enjoys adventure. Finds danger exciting. W i l l take physical risks. Scale H - High Is responsive to music, art, the beauty of nature. Can get Involved in imaginative experience and fantasy. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094960/manifest

Comment

Related Items