Advertisement

Eye Movements and Pupil Size Reveal Deception in Computer Administered Questionnaires

  • Andrea K. Webb
  • Douglas J. Hacker
  • Dahvyn Osher
  • Anne E. Cook
  • Dan J. Woltz
  • Sean Kristjansson
  • John C. Kircher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)

Abstract

An oculomotor test is described that uses pupil diameter and eye movements during reading to detect deception. Forty participants read and responded to statements on a computerized questionnaire about their possible involvement in one of two mock crimes. Twenty guilty participants committed one of two mock crimes, and 20 innocent participants committed no crime. Guilty participants demonstrated speeded and accurate reading when they encountered statements about their crime and increases in pupil size. A discriminant function of oculomotor measures successfully discriminated between guilty and innocent participants and between the two groups of guilty participants. Results suggest that oculomotor tests may be of value for pre-employment and security screening applications.

Keywords

Oculomotor measures pupil size deception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Krapohl, D.J.: The Polygraph in Personnel Screening. In: Kleiner, M. (ed.) Handbook of Polygraph Testing, pp. 217–236. Academic Press, San Diego (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Technology Assessment: The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-employment Screening (OTA-SET-442). U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vrij, A.: Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Research Council: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rayner, K.: Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychol. Bull. 124, 372–422 (1998)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahneman, D.: Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1973)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beatty, J., Wagoner, B.L.: Pupillometric Signs of Brain Activation Vary with Level of Cognitive Processing. Science 199, 1216–1218 (1978)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D., Beatty, J.: Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory. Science 154, 1583–1585 (1966)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schluroff, M.: Pupil Responses to Grammatical Complexity of Sentences. Brain Lang. 17, 133–145 (1982)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beatty, J.: Task-evoked Pupillary Responses, Processing Load, and the Structure of Processing Resources. Psychol. Bull. 91, 276–292 (1982)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stern, R.M., Ray, W.J., Quigley, K.S.: Psychophysiological recording, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bradley, M.T., Janisse, M.P.: Accuracy Demonstrations, Threat, and the Detection of Deception: Cardiovascular, Electrodermal, and Pupillary Measures. Psychophysiology 18, 307–315 (1981)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lubow, R.E., Fein, O.: Pupillary Size in Response to a Visual Guilty Knowledge Test: New Technique for the Detection of Deception. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2, 164–177 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Webb, A.K., Honts, C.R., Bernhardt, P., Kircher, J.C., Cook, A.E.: Effectiveness of Pupil Diameter in a Probable-lie Comparison Question Test for Deception. Legal Criminol. Psychol. (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A.: The psychology of reading. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker, L., Stern, J.A., Goldstein, R.: The Gaze Control System and the Detection of Deception. Final report to the U.S. Government (Contract #90-F131400). Washington University, Department of Psychology, St. Louis (1992) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellson, D.G., Davis, R.C., Saltzman, I.J., Burke, C.J.: A Report of Research on Detection of Deception. Technical report prepared for Office of Naval Research (Contract N6onr-18011). Indiana University (1952)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Althoff, R.R., Cohen, N.J.: Eye-Movement-Based Memory Effect: A Reprocessing Effect in Face Perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 25, 997–1010 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osher, D.: Multimethod Assessment of Deception: Oculomotor Movement, Pupil Size, and Response Time Measures. Dissertation Abstracts International (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webb, A.K.: Effects of Motivation, and Item Difficulty on Oculomotor and Behavioral Measures of Deception. Unpublished dissertation, University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guttel, E.: Overcorrection. Georgetown Law J. 93, 241–283 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haselton, M.G., Nettle, D., Andrews, P.W.: The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In: Buss, D.M. (ed.) Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 724–746. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meijer, E.H., Smulder, F.T.Y., Johnston, J.E., Merckelbach, H.L.G.J.: Combining Skin Conductance and Forced Choice in the Detection of Concealed Information. Psychophysiology 44, 814–822 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea K. Webb
    • 1
  • Douglas J. Hacker
    • 1
  • Dahvyn Osher
    • 1
  • Anne E. Cook
    • 1
  • Dan J. Woltz
    • 1
  • Sean Kristjansson
    • 2
  • John C. Kircher
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Washington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations