Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35006396›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2022

Speed versus accuracy instructions in the response time concealed information test.

Till Lubczyk, Gáspár Lukács, Ulrich Ansorge

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Till LubczykDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010, Vienna, Austria.
Gáspár LukácsDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010, Vienna, Austria. gaspar.lukacs@univie.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0001-9401-4830
Ulrich AnsorgeDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2421-9942
University of Vienna · AT

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science PE21023Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 85065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The response time concealed information test (RT-CIT) can reveal that a person recognizes a relevant item (probe) among other, irrelevant items, based on slower responding to the probe compared to the irrelevant items. Thereby, if this person is concealing knowledge about the relevance of this item (e.g., recognizing it as a murder weapon), this deception can be unveiled. In the present paper, we examined the impact of a speed versus accuracy instruction: Examinees (N = 235) were either presented with instructions emphasizing a focus on speed, with instructions emphasizing a focus on accuracy, or with no particular speed or accuracy instructions at all. We found that although participants responded to the probe and the irrelevants marginally faster when they had received instructions emphasizing speed, there was no significant difference between RTs of the different experimental groups and crucially no significant difference between the probe-irrelevant RT differences either. This means that such instructions are unlikely to benefit the RT-CIT, but it also suggests that related deliberate manipulation (focusing on speed on or accuracy) is unlikely to decrease the efficiency of the RT-CIT-contributing further evidence to the RT-CIT's resistance to faking.

Indexed as

DeceptionThermogenesisHumansReaction TimeConcealed information testDeceptionDecision makingResponse timeSpeed–accuracy trade-off

Identifiers

PMID35006396
PMCPMC8748592
OpenAlexW4205584057

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.