Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
1, 2, 3 Crimes You’re Out: Ocular-Motor Methods for Detecting Deception in a Multiple-Issue Screening Protocol
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
1, 2, 3 Crimes You’re Out: Ocular-Motor Methods for Detecting Deception in a Multiple-Issue Screening Protocol
Do you wish to request the book?
1, 2, 3 Crimes You’re Out: Ocular-Motor Methods for Detecting Deception in a Multiple-Issue Screening Protocol
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Dissertation
1, 2, 3 Crimes You’re Out: Ocular-Motor Methods for Detecting Deception in a Multiple-Issue Screening Protocol
2020
Overview
Previous laboratory and field studies have demonstrated that the Ocular-motor Deception Test (ODT) accurately discriminates between truthful and deceptive individuals. The ODT uses the Relevant Comparison Test (RCT), a test format that asks examinees about their involvement in two relevant issues, although examinees can be classified as deceptive to only one issue. The present study investigated whether ocular-motor measures can discriminate between truthful and deceptive individuals and identify the specific crime deceptive individuals committed on a test that asks about four relevant issues.One hundred and eighty participants were recruited from the community and the University of Utah campus. Sixty participants stole$20 (cash), 60 participants stole $ 20 and a VISA gift card (cash+card), and the remaining 60 participants were innocent (innocent). Participants were asked about their involvement in four mock crimes: theft of $20, theft of a VISA gift card, vandalism of a parking kiosk, and filing a false police report. Cash participants were deceptive to cash statements, cash+card participants were deceptive to cash statements and card statements, and innocent participants were truthful to all statements. Reactions to cash, card, and vandalism statements were compared to those on false report statements to determine deception. After a participant finished the ODT, they completed a vocabulary test to assess their levels of crystallized intelligence. As predicted, cash participants showed significant changes in pupil dilations and reading behaviors to cash statements, and cash+card participants showed significant changes in pupil dilations and reading behaviors to cash and card statements. A logistic regression function correctly classified 83.3% of innocent participants, 91.7% of cash participants, and 85.5% of cash+card participants. For innocent participants, 90% of cash items, 91.7% of card items, and 96.7% of vandalism items were accurately identified. For cash participants, 93.3% of cash items, 83.3% of card items, and 96.7% of vandalism items were accurately identified. For cash+card participants, 75% of cash items, 68.3% of card items, and 93.3% of vandalism items were accurately identified. Area under the receiver operating curve was .92 for cash classifications and .85 for card classifications.Limitations of the present findings and implications for field applications are discussed.
Publisher
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Subject
ISBN
9798841778080
