Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39405309›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Fast & furious: Rejecting the hypothesis that secondary psychopathy improves reaction time-based concealed information detection.

Imbar Mizrahi, Nathalie Klein Selle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Imbar MizrahiDepartment of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0009-0002-8790-6069
Nathalie Klein SelleDepartment of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-4406-376X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deception, a complex aspect of human behavior, is inherently difficult to detect directly. A valid alternative involves memory detection, particularly through methods such as the Reaction-Time based Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT). The RT-CIT assesses whether an individual possesses specific knowledge by presenting various probe (familiar) items amidst irrelevant (unfamiliar) items. The task-required "unfamiliar" response to probes may induce a response conflict. Resolving this conflict, by inhibiting the automatic "familiar" response, takes time and slows probe RTs-a phenomenon known as the RT-CIT effect. Notably, secondary psychopathy is characterized by disinhibition and impulsivity, traits which may hinder the ability to effectively manage experienced conflict. Therefore, we hypothesized that secondary psychopathy would be associated with an elevated RT-CIT effect. To investigate this hypothesized relation, we conducted a pre-registered study (n = 86, student sample), employing a novel CIT paradigm that incorporates no-go trials to assess response inhibition capacity. Psychopathic traits were measured using the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) scale, while the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) assessed impulsivity. The novel CIT paradigm revealed impressive detection efficiency. However, contrary to our expectations, we observed no significant correlation between the RT-CIT effect and secondary psychopathic traits (BF01 = 6.98). This cautiously suggests that while secondary psychopathic tendencies do not improve RT-CIT validity, they also do not compromise it. Although future investigations should explore more diverse contexts and populations, this tentative finding is reassuring and underscores the robustness of the CIT paradigm.

Indexed as

Antisocial Personality DisorderReaction TimeAdolescentAdultDeceptionFemaleHumansImpulsive BehaviorLie DetectionMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39405309
PMCPMC11478853

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.