(MIS)measuring cognitive load and arousal in deception: A multitrait–multimethod analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Cognitive load and arousal are cornerstones of many deception detection strategies and theories; in turn, their effective measurement is critical. However, fundamental criteria for establishing the quality and accuracy of measures have largely been overlooked. In this study, we examined the reliability and construct validity of common cognitive load and arousal measures. Method We obtained three independent secondary datasets in which participants ( N = 238) had lied or told the truth about witnessing a suspicious event. Using a multitrait–multimethod analysis, we assessed three measures of their cognitive load and arousal: participants' self‐reports, trained coders' observations, and objective behaviours. Results Although all measures were reliable, they achieved differing levels of validation. Specifically, measures of cognitive load showed evidence of convergent validity, but not discriminant validity. There was no empirical support for the construct validity of arousal measures. Conclusions These findings suggest that inconsistencies in the diagnosticity of cues to deception and theory support may be attributable to the measures employed. Researchers may not be assessing constructs of interest, particularly in the case of arousal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".