Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32886169›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2021

The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and choice reaction times.

Merylin Monaro, Ilaria Zampieri, Giuseppe Sartori, Pietro Pietrini, Graziella Orrù

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Merylin Monaro *Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. merylin.monaro@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5598-691X
Ilaria Zampieri *IMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy.
Giuseppe SartoriDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Pietro PietriniIMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy.
Graziella OrrùDepartment of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of faked identities, especially within the Internet environment, still remains a challenging issue both for companies and researchers. Recently, however, latency-based lie detection techniques have been developed to evaluate whether the respondent is the real owner of a certain identity. Among the paradigms applied to this purpose, the technique of asking unexpected questions has proved to be useful to differentiate liars from truth-tellers. The aim of the present study was to assess whether a choice reaction times (RT) paradigm, combined with the unexpected question technique, could efficiently detect identity liars. Results demonstrate that the most informative feature in distinguishing liars from truth-tellers is the Inverse Efficiency Score (IES, an index that combines speed and accuracy) to unexpected questions. Moreover, to focus on the predictive power of the technique, machine-learning models were trained and tested, obtaining an out-of-sample classification accuracy of 90%. Overall, these findings indicate that it is possible to detect liars declaring faked identities by asking unexpected questions and measuring RTs and errors, with an accuracy comparable to that of well-established latency-based techniques, such as mouse and keystroke dynamics recording.

Indexed as

DeceptionInternetAnimalsHumansMiceReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID32886169
PMCPMC8357779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.