Cognitive and Emotional Reactions to Questions in the Comparison Question Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of situational factors on perceptions of items on the polygraph Comparison Question Test (CQT) was assessed. In an initial experiment, 86 students (30 men, 56 women; M age = 20.3 yr., SD = 4.0) imagined one of eight scenarios that varied by guilt or innocence, the commission of a real crime or mock crime, and interrogation by a police officer or a professor. They then rated generic CQT questions for importance and emotional concern. All participants rated crime-relevant questions as being more important than past-crime comparison questions. "Guilty" participants also rated these questions as being more emotionally concerning, but "innocent" participants showed no differences in their ratings of concern for the two question types. Interrogator or crime type did not affect the general pattern of responding. A second experiment involving 80 students (21 men, 58 women, 1 non-specified; M age = 22.5 yr., SD = 7.3) replaced the generic CQT questions with content-specific questions developed by the participant. Those imagining guilt showed no differencesin their ratings of relevant and comparison questions, whereas those imagining innocence rated comparison questions as more concerning. Again, interrogator type and crime type had little effect on results. Overall these findings indicated distinctions in cognitive and emotional appraisal for CQT questions, with the nature of emotional concern dependent on guilt/innocence status and the personal relevance of comparison questions. Evidence suggests that the CQT is robust to other situational factors, such as crime type and interrogator type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".