917 100 4MB
English Pages 113
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL
J a n u a r y 29,
1c£2
This dissertation prepared under my direction by
....................
entitled Evaluation of the Indices 'of Deception ~in the Psycho-
g a lv a n ic T e c h n iq u e ,
,
has been accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree o f
Doctor of Philosophy........... ...............
j G J L i (F aculty A d vise r)
EVALUATION
OF THE
INDICES
IN THE P S Y C H O G A L V A N I C
OF DECEPTION TECHNIQUE
By FABIAN LOGUE RQUKE B.A., B o s t o n College, *34 M.A., Fordham. University, *37
DISSERTATION S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQU I R E M E N T S FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF P H I L O S O F H Y IN THE D E P A RTMENT OF P S Y C H O L O G Y AT F O R D H A M U N I V E R S I T Y
N E W YORK 1941
ProQuest Number: 10992503
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.
uest ProQuest 10992503 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
L
•J
iii 1
r TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
LIST OF TABLES. . .................................. LIST
I.
iv
OF F I G U R E S ....................................
v
P R E F A C E ..............................................
vi
THE P R O B L E M OF LIE D E T E C T I O N ....................
1
Criti c a l Resume P r o b l e m of I n v e s t i g a t i o n II.
M E T H O D O L O G Y ......................................
21
General C o n s i d e r a t i o n s The P s y c h o g a l v a n i c Response Subj ect s Procedure Instrument Electrode s Records III.
TREATMENT
OF R E S U L T S ..............................
34
Visual A n a l y s i s of the Records The Judges Int e r p r e t a t i o n s at Time of Tests Ratings of Judge A and Judge B A n a l y s i s of Indices C orre l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s W e i g h t e d Scores Di scus s ion IV.
L.
S U M M A R Y A ND C O N C L U S I O N . . . . ......................
80
A P P E N D I X .................................
84
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ........................................
98
J
iv r
LIST OF TABLES
n
Table
Page
I, Numb e r of A d e q u a t e Responses able R e c o r d s ••••••• II.
III.
43
Per Cent A c c u r a c y of I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Judges Using Individual and C o m p a r a t i v e M e t h ods of Diagno sis. .«••••• ........
44
P er Cent A c c u r a c y of I n t e r p r e t a t i o n on T h i r t een Groups w i t h A d d i t i o n a l R e c o r d s .
47
C o n t i n g e n c y C o e f f i c i e n t s between the D e c i sions of the Judges and Actual Guilt or Innocenc e • • . ................ •••••
43
.
IV.
in U n i n t e r p r e t •••••••••••
V. C o n t i n g e n c y C o e f f i c i e n t s b e t w e e n the Judgments of Judge A and Judge B in the Individual Anal......... • • • • • • • ..•••••••••• ysis. VI. VII. VIII.
P er Cent A c c u r a c y of Indices in D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Guilt from I n n o c e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........
58
Per Cent A c c u r a c y of Indices Based on Records I and II C o m b i n e d ....... ...............
59
Per Cent A c c u r a c y of the S u b j ective I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and the Obj e c t i v e Indices Based on Identical Groups of C a s e s • • • • • • • • •••••
60
IX. P o i n t B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s of the Indices and Guilt or I n n o c e n c e . ............... X.
XI. XII. XIII. XIV.
XV.
XVI.
l_
49
Change in B R b e t w e e n First and Last in Each R e c o r d .......
63
Responses 65
01 C o e f f i c i e n t s b e t ween the Changes in the In dices and Guilt.. ..... • • • • • • ............ •••••••
67
P o i n t B i s e r i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of c/p P GR Values, Record I, Group D . . ......................
71
P e r Cent A c c u r a c y of Composite W e i g h t e d dices (Comp a r a t i v e Analysis) ..........
73
P o i n t Bis e r i a l t w een W e i g h t e d I n n o cence •
In
C o r r e l a t i o n Coef f i c i e n t s b e Com p o s i t e Indices and Guilt or ........ • • • • ...... ••••••••
74
P e r Cent A c c u r a c y of Composite Indices with Crossed W e i g h t s (Comparative A n a l y s i s ) ..........
76
Point Biserial Correlation Coefficients be t w een C o m p o s i t e Indices w i t h Crossed We i g h t s and Guilt or I n n o c e n c e ........................••••
76 j
V r
“i
LIST
OF F I G URES
Figure I. II. III. IV.
S p e c i m e n R e a c t i o n ..................................
Normal Record... Normal
VI.
R e j ected
IX.
89
........................
Record. •
Rejected
VIII.
88
Normal R e c o r d .........................
V.
VII.
l.
Page
Record
.. ........................
R e c o r d ....
90 91 92 93
Re j e c t e d R e c o r d ....................
94
Rejec t e d R e c o r d . . . ............
95
Skeleton
96
C i r cuit of the P a t h o m e t e r ........
j
VI
PREFACE
This w o r k Father
is r e s p e c t f u l l y d e d i c a t e d to
Summers,
the m e m o r y of
S.J.
Acknowledgements Ab o v e all, Kubis, ance,
I w i s h to t h a n k my mentor,
for his p a t ient but
even m ore for his
I wis h Costello,
c r i t i c i s m and his
to t h a n k
who
also
steady,
Dr,
generous
friendly
assisting
assist
encouragement.
in a special w a y Mr.
spent long hours
Joseph F.
in the
Ti m o t h y laborious
w ork of computation. To Mr. i n d ebted
F r a n k Routh i e r
for
and Mr. W a r r e n K e l l y
I am
their loyal help.
I w i s h to t h a n k B r o t h e r B. Thomas,
D i r e c t o r of
L i n c o l n Hall,
and Br o t h e r Paul for granting p e r m i s s i o n for
my
in that
e x p e riment
institution,
and
I app r e c i a t e
sin
c e rely the c o o p e r a t i o n given me by Bro t h e r s Aloysius, Leo,
Anthony
School;
and Lewis.
to B r o t h e r James
to Miss W e i n i g grateful quent
L.
To B r o t h e r Michael,
for the
and
Mr.
at
St.
and Father O ' B r i e n at St.
F l a n a g a n at the
cooperation
in
Casita Maria,
obtaining
Amedy,
Jerome's Raymond's; I
am
the n o n - d e l i n
subjects.
J
r
n
E V A L U A T I O N OF THE INDICES OF D E C E P T I O N IN THE P S Y C H O G A L V A N I C T E C H NIQUE
L_
J
r
n C H A PTER I THE P R O B L E M OF LIE DET E C T I O N That
it is important for man to k n o w the truth
a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h few, eras
of m a n ’s social
if any, will development
deny.
is an
In the ancient
there were
attempts
at
lie d e t e c t i o n w i t h definite i m pressionistic and dramatic I techniques. P r o c edures, such as ordeal, combat, and t o r ture, were
were b a sed on s u perstitious beliefs invalid.
the pulse, based,
However,
or havi n g
the
certain methods,
in emotion,
present
scientific
of course,
such as feeling
subject chew dry rice,
k n o w i n g l y or unknowingly,
actions
and,
and were the
were
on the p h y s i o l o g i c a l forerunners
of our
approaches.
With the e x c e p t i o n of a method of recording, istratus
2
kno w l e d g e
used
change the
a perfectly
of its n a ture
ta t i o n of the
results.
in pulse,
latter half
re
objective
and effects
technique with and a p r oper
He used an objective
vtrhich was
s u b j e ctively
of the last
Eras-
interpre
indicator,
interpreted.
century an instrumental
In tech
nique
for lie d e t e c t i o n had its first practical a p p H C a 'Z tion w h e n L o m b r o s o used a p l e t h y s m o g r a p h in the i n t e r r o
g a tion
of criminal
suspects.
1. John A. Larson, Lying and Its D e t e c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, Chicago^ T932, C h . TIT} Paul V. Trovillo, "A H i s t o r y of Lie Detection", J_. C r i m . L aw and Criminology, 1939, 29, 848-881; 30, 104-119.
TH4 8-8 54T^ 2. Ib i d ♦, p. 849. 3. Gina L o m b r o s o - F e r r e r o , Criminal M a n , G.P. Sons, N e w York and London, 1911, p. 225.
!_
P u t n a m ’s
J
2
r
h
The tific
specific
a p p r oaches
tec h n i q u e s
to lie
used
in the
so-called
scien
d e t ection can be c l a s sified under
the fol l o w i n g headings: 1# 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Free A s s o c i a t i o n Technique Respiration Blood P r e ssure B l ood P r e s s u r e and R e s p i r a t i o n M o t o r Reactions The P s y c h o g a l v a n i c Response Miscellaneous
Jung'*' d e v e l o p e d indicated land
the free a s s o c i a t i o n technique
its use for the det e c t i o n of deception.
a p p lied the a s s o c i a t i o n principle
v e s t i gations w i t h In seven
subjects
series of tests,
jects,
forty
tained
from all but
actually with
a total
of w h o m were controls,
Cros-
in a series
suspected
and
of in
of theft.
of f i f t y-five
c o n f essions w ere
sub ob
one of those who had been indicated as /p
56
(61)
57
(49)
67
60
c/f
66
(62)
62
(58)
68
68
77
68
66
62
ac/anc
M e a n Value
1.
72
i
1
69
; 67
74 _____________ 66
The four values in pa re n t he se s are based on the a r i t h metic m e a n of the values of the criteria. The 77 value is based on the m e d i a n value of the six pr op ort ion s (c/p) o b t a i n e d in record I. The 74 value is based on the ar it hm et ic average of the same six proportions. In vi e w of the gr ea te r d i s c r i m i n a t i v e accuracy of the m e d i a n values, fur the r st at istical analysis of the arithmetic averages was not made. J
59 r
In sp ect ion of the table
ferences.^-
The values
are
ten de nc y for the ac/anc (Av - 6S^) index. and
No pr o n o u n c e d
index to be more
of
with
dif-
d i sc ri min ati ve (Av ** 62^)
exist be tw ee n records
I
D and Group ND. the per cent ac cu rac y values of the twelve
ob tai ned fr o m b o t h records
I and
Obta ine d fr om avera gin g the two medians,
record I and the m e d i a n of record
of c/p
II and the the m ed ia n
II.
TA BLE VII Pe r Based
Cent A c c u r a c y of on Records
Group Indices
Median I & II
Md
I and
Indices II Combined
D
Group ND
Av er a g e I & Md
II
Median I & II
Md
Ave rage I & Md
c/p
67
66
60
61
c/f
77
79
66
63
c/p
62
59
66
60
c/f
62
67
71
71
67
68
66
64
II
PG R
W Mean Value
n
a slight
or the c/p
based upon the m e d i a n value
or c/f values values
(Av«63^)
differ en ces
Table VII p r es en ts indices
app rec iab le
fairly consistent,
th an eit her the c/f
II or b e t w e e n Group
the
reveals no
1. A co m p a r i s o n of the c/p index in the P G R and W c a t e gories for record I reveals a d if fer en ce of 21 per cent, c/p(PGR) being 77, while c/p(W) is 56. The standard error of this di ff e r e n c e is .072, yi el d i n g a critical ratio of less than three, and co ns eq u e n t l y of doubtful st ati stical reliability. Since this dif fe re nc e is the largest p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y m e an in gf ul dif fe re nc e in the table, it is re aso na b le to expect no s ta ti st ic al ly reliable di ff er en ce s of any ps yc ho l o g i c a l significance >- wi t h i n this table.
60 r
-i A g a i n there
value
significant
results neither
of the per cent a c c u ra cy nor
indices.^ accu rac y c/p
are
Some
slight
of the c/f
index
C o mp ar is on
in the
in the
com parison
of the
t e nd en cy exists for the gre at er
index
(Av * 70/^)
as compared with the
(Av * 6 2 ^ ) . of Subj ect ive
Int erp re ta ti on and Obj ect ive
An al ys is Direct subje cti ve
c o m pa r i s o n
Table VII,
In the
su bjective
d ia gn ose d
accordingly,
no
judg men t was made records
indices were me as ur a b le .
di rect
tables
are
in Table
interpretation,
as d o ub tf ul
data ba sed on all
two
statistical
from the data p r es en te d
records were
th ese
accuracy of the m e t ho ds
i n t e r pr et a ti on and gross
is not po ss ibl e
tains
of the
Thus
of
analysis II and
in
c e rt ai n
or u ni nte rp ret ab le, on them.
Table VII
in wh ich
the various
the cases
r e p r es en te d
not
identical.
co m p ar is o n of the
subje ct ive
and, con
in
Table VIII gives
a
and ob jective methods,
TABLE VIII P e r Cent A c c u r a c y of the Subj ective And the Obj ective
Indices Ba s e d on Identical
Group 1 N S ub je ct ive Obj ec t i v e
Inte rp re tation
j |
D
Or ou£s
of C a s e s
Group ED
Judge A
Judge B
Judge A
Judge B
29 pairs
33 pairs
21 pairs
38 pairs
93
79
100
76
72
73
86
69
jTI The largest di f f e r e n c e cri tical ratio of 2.7.
in this table
(79-59)
yields
a
61 r w h e n the c o m p u t a t i o n is based on the method.
In each
instance,
jective
in te r p r e t a t i o n
p on di ng
obje cti ve
not
several
analysis.
subjecti ve
indices
value
c/p,
of the
The differences, N being
(ex.
small
sub
c/f,
int er pr et at io n
c/p,
PGR,
hov/ever,
are
in each paired
evalua tio n of the
tive m e a s u r e . u s e d ' f o r this the c/f,
in each
is hi gh e r than that for the c o r r e s
Since the judges*
based upon the of
ac curacy per cent
st a ti st ic all y reliable,
comparison.
same cases
is d e fi ni te ly
i n te rr ela tio n
and W ) , the o b j e c
co mp ar i s o n is the m e a n value
of
P G R and W indices co rr e s po nd in g to the m e a n
of Me d i a n
I and
II columns of Table ¥11.
Go rr el ati ona l A n al ysi s The above the two
values,
analysis was based upon the or two
sets of values,
g r e a t e r than the other.
This
the basis
m ine
rel at io n of m a g n i t u de
guilt or inn ocence proce dur e quate
judgment ’’g u i l t y ” .
irr esp ect ive
of c o r r e l a t i o n was
var iable
correlation
of these
in dex values
The form ula
a
The p r o b l e m of an a d e
in volving a continuous
and a di cho tom ous
(Guilt or I n n o c e n c e ) , the latter assuming face.-1
to
solved by the f o r mu la for
coefficient
(criterion values)
con
To d e t e r
of such comparison,
used.
co rr e l a t i o n t e c h n iq ue was
a bise ria l
of whi ch was
"gr eater t h a n ” aspect
stituted the
for the
one
co mp ar i s o n of
is the following:
variable
a tw o- fol d
sur-
2
bis
1.
Richardson, M.TiT., and Stalnaker, J.M., ”A Note on the Use of Bi -s er ia l r in Test R e s e a r c h ” , J. Gen, Psychol., 1933, 8, 463-465. j_2• The aut ho r is ind eb te d to Dr. Robert T. Rock, Jr., for the ter minology. This coe fficient is also called the po int biserial.
62 r w h e r e Mt * M e a n of the
i conti nuo us
variable for the total
con tinuous
variable
group Mp » M e a n of the d ic ho to mou s
of the
group
t s Standard d e v i a t i o n for the w h o l e
of the
con tinuous
variable
group
p * P r o p o r t i o n of indiv id ua ls group
for one
c o n s id e r e d
in the dicho to mo us
in Mp as compared to the
total
group q = l^p Table di ch ot om ou s These
IX
variable
co rr e l a t i o n
offer no
and the several
index values.
co eff ic ie nt s are of low m a g n i t u d e
except
ind icated
the point bi se r i a l s b e t w e e n the
(S-l)
great pr om is e
nev er t he le s s, ences
pr es ent s
of predi cti ve
one,
value.'*’
all positive.
in prev io us
analyses
and
They are,
Several
differ
are noted here also,
namely, 1.
The
index ac/anc
gives the
great est ma gni t u de .
Av Av Av
Next
bis ac/anc V
c o r r e l a t i o n of the is the c/f D
ND
.32
.25
bis
c/f
.28
.21
bis
c/p
.25
.18
index.
1. A m u l t i p l e r e g re s s i o n eq u at io n for pur poses of p r e di ct io n was not deemed jus tified in v i e w of the low m a g n i t u d e of the coeffi ci en ts , their probable low reliability, and the na ture of the as su m p t i o n s u n d e r lying this type of c or r e l a t i o n coefficient. L
_i
63
r
TABLE IX Point
Biserial
of the
Co rr e l at io n Coe fficients
Indices
and Guilt or
Innocence^
Group D
Group ED
Record
Record
Ind ices I
PGR
I & II
I
II
I & II
c/p
.31
.21
.27
.35
-.03
.16
c/f
.31
.13
. 30
.23
.10
.17
.39
.20
.24
.34
.11
.22
c/p
.17
.23
.27
.20
.17
.25
c/f
.38
.28
. 36
.30
.31
.37
.44
.45
.39
.36
.31
.29
ac/anc
W
II
ac/anc
.
2. The co rr el a ti on s
,- -
are of hi gh e r m a g n i t u d e for
Group D.
A v of all 3.
iy bis
The co rr el a t i o n s
D
ND
.30
.21
are of highe r m a g n i t u d e
for the
W indices.
1. The or d e r of m a g n i t u d e of the PE of these co ef fi ci en ts m a y be e st im a te d from the fo llowing PE values *Y bis PE Group D PE Group ND
.10 1.09 +-.09
.20
.30
.40
.50
1.09 1.08 +*0 8 +.08
1.08 +.0 8
1.07 +.07
and J.W. Dunlap# MA G r aph ic al Method for C o mp ut in g the Stan da rd E rro r of B is er ia l r " , J. Exp. Educ., 1934, 2, 274-277. ~ L
64 D
A T of V
bis
ND
( (W)
»33
.24
(PCJR)
.26
.18
n
C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the BR index concerns the fol lo wi ng aspects s 1.
re lation of the change record
2.
II w i t h
relation wit h
record more
does the BR increase
Does
above,
the f ol l o w i n g two va ri a b l e s were
guilty?
record
second
innocent and d e
E m pl oy in g the same tec hn iq ue co rr elated
as
for
D and Group ND: a.
B RlI - BHj
b.
Guilt or Innocence
The point bi s e r ia l and — .07
(Group ND).^
r e l i a b i l i ty of the
con se quently,
the first
sign.
No
it is not adequate
can be made co n c e r n i ng
.22
(Group
the
surprising
D) and to
interpretations, relation of
or innocence.
second aspect
response was
are
In v ie w of the low magnitude,
in B R with guilt For the
co ef fic ie nts
co eff i c ie nt s
find t h e m of o p po si te
1.
in the
it increase for the
for the
change
innocence.
innocent than for the
crease
Group
I to
or innocence.
p r o n o u n c e d l y for the
gu ilty person?
guilt or
of the change in BR w i t h i n one
guilt
For example,
actual
in B R from record
of the BR index,
the BR for
co m p a r e d with the BR for the last
The / c o e f f i c i e n ts of c o rr el at io n of a fou rf ol d point surface for the same v a ria bl es are .21 and — .07. This c o e f f ic i en t is used and n o t e d below.
low
65 r response
"i in each
record*
slig ht ly b e t w e e n these
It either increased or de creased
two
end points,
or re ma ine d constant.
A f o ur fo ld t ab le was t h e n set up. The co ef f ic ie n t ^ two
variables
expresses the r e la ti on b e t w e e n
i nd ic ate d
in each table.
c o n t i n u i t y of va ri a b l e s
is made,
m ul a is g e n e r a l l y a p p li ed to The fo u r f o ld d i s t r i b u ti o n s
the
No a s s u mp ti on of
since the
correlation for
a fourfold point
surface.
g iv en in Table X involved two TABLE X
Change b e t w e e n First
and Last
in Each Record
Responses
Record
I
Inn o c e n ce -G u il t
change in BR
in BR
Record
vari ab le
In no cen ce -G ui lt variiable
G
I
G
8
6
21
22
-h
5
4
-
26
27
—
.05
/ = .04
v a ri ab le s both of wh i c h are only one of w hi ch is e s s e n t i a l l y
1.
L_
Guilford, N e w York, involved.
expressed d i c h o t o m o u s l y , but
is d i s c o n t i n u o u s
c ont in uou s
J.P., 1936,
II
(change
(G-l),
while
the
other
in BR either pos it iv el y
P s y c h o m e t r i o M e t h o d s , McGraw -H ill , p. 352, for the f o r m u l a and as su m p ti on s
J
66 r or neg atively)* In other words, and increase
i The / coeffic ie nts the
are low and positive.
co rr el at io n between guilt and
in BR w i t h i n the same
record
innocence
is negative,'*' but
very low and unreliable. It was the change to
record
expla ine d above
in the II.
c/p,
were
com puted
increase
c/f and ac/anc
Using the
as w it h the BR change
indices was
ratios
from record
same type of fo urfold
and G— I variables,
I'
distribution
the / coe ffi cie nts
for the r e la ti on of innocence or guilt to
in each of the
An actual
that one of the
table will
indices
i llu str ate
from record the type
I to
record II.
of d i s tr ib ut io n
used. G change in c/f
21
22
18
17
-.07
Here we note
a very
chang e o r an inc re ase guilt .
si ight ten de ncy of a p o s it i ve
in the
Table XI p res ent s th e /
the :r elation b e twe en chan ges dices b e t w e e n Positive
1,
c/f ratio to be r el at ed to
records
in the m a g n i t u d e
and guilt
co e f fi c ie nt s
coeffic ient s exp ress ing of the
in
or innocence.
indicate that a po s i t i v e
change
It is obvious that the p o s it iv e or ne g at iv e cha ra ct er of the c o e ff i ci en t is co nt ingent upon the ar ran gem ent of the rows and columns. If the G and I columns were interchanged, / w o u l d be negative. In the above tables, the relation be tw ee n innocence and increase in BR is p os it ive and c o n s e q u e n tl y n eg at iv e as regards guilt.
67 r TABLE XI
in the
Indices
and Guilt
Group D
c/p
.06
c/f
-.07
.06
to o 1 •
L..
.03
ac/anc
Group ND
• o 03
Indices
PG R
bet wee n the Changes
I
(B Co e f f i c ie nt s
i
W
c/p
.00
-.01
c/f
.05
.04
.02
-.05
ac/anc in the
index is p o s i t i v e l y re lated to
c o e f f i c i e n ts
express
positive
I n s p e c ti on of the ta b l e nounced
or reliable
changes
in m a g n i t u d e
II and guilt
re la tio nsh ip wi th guilt. very clearly that no p r o
r el a ti o n s h i p of the
n e ga ti ve
is indicated b e t w e e n the
indices from record
I to
record
or innocence.
The general cor re la ti o na l The
shows
innocence;
co nc l u si on s
ana lys is
single
are
indices
from this
sect ion of the
these:
of the PG R and W variables
p o s i t i v e l y co r r e l a t e d w i t h the G-I the co ef f ic i en ts
variable,
are of l o w m a gn it ud e
are but
and low
reliability; The
c or rel at ion s
in c/p,
c/f and ac/anc
are in ge neral i_
ficance.
b e t w e e n changes
in BR,
the
changes
indices arid the G-I variable
very low and of no pr ac tical
signij
68 Weighted
Scores
n
In view of the above single
indices
the p o s s i b i l i t y of
tion w i t h
several
score was
investigated.
indices
change
w o r k with the
co mbi ned as
change
I to
in c/p,
c/f,
II it was
and decided to
c/f,
a v c/av nc
Records
I and
II
W
: c/p,
c/f,
av c /a v nc
Records
I and
II
I
indices
in the P G R var iable were for Record
and II combined.
dure
was used for W.
were
com bi ne d w it h the three
also
done
Further,
for PG R II and W
W I and W II were
a l g e b r a i c a l l y the bined.
a raw score
scores
data
I
This was
score.
scores
is r e la ti v e l y
simple
raw scores to be co m
standard d e v i a t i o n its de viate value
However,
are n e e d e d
from the
such a p ro ce du re
in
amount of labor and the re lative p r e c i obtained
seems g r e at er t h a n
by the p r e c i s i o n of me a s u r e m e n t . origin al
for W I.
for P G R
Finally, P G R I, P G R II,
of the
m e a n of the distrib ut io n.
sion in the
and
the process being m e r e l y to add
z scores
a de f i n i t e
II,
same co mb in at io n p r o c e
indices
II.
Only the m e a n and the
in or de r to give
The
given a single
are used,
I, for Record
combined
the three indices
The p r o b l e m of com bining z scores
of
cor relations t ha n
: c/p,
for Records
values L-
indices
PGR
into a c o m p o s i t e va l u e
volves
composite
following:
The three
when
individual
record
the
the c o r r e l a
a weighted
yie ld ed hig he r
in BR and the
av c/ a v no fr om record
relative to
increasing
Since the
the PG R and W va ri ables the
co nc lusions
is pr o b a b l y
seem to indicate.
is ju st ified
In other words,
the
less precise than the t r a n s m ut ed Fu rthermore,
it is desi ra bl e _j
69 r her e to ??eight the va lues
of the
w h i c h they s eem to m a k e the best guilt
or innocence.
W i t h this
pr o c e d u r e was d e c i d ed upon. each
a value
g u il ty
and only four
c/p index, c r i m in at iv e Similarly,
seemed
if there we re
t w e n t y g ui lt y 1.8,
if there were
to have a fair degree of d i s
si gni ficance.
innoc.ent in div idu als
In the
be lo w 1.1,
mi nus
only to
a value
of fi fteen
in noc ent
in nocent
out
for
G
each
given these plus
it is to be noted,
in separ at in g
give -weights to
as m a n y
values were g iv e n w hi ch would y ie ld 3/2,
score
or
are a s s i g n e d which
the guilty from
individuals.
In order to
at least
beyon d
I and five
scores above and b e l o w a cert ain value,
innocent
with
of — 3 w o u l d be gi v e n any
raw scores
val ue was f a i r l y d i a g n o s t i c
ible,
indiv id ual s
Such w e ig h t s w e r e wo rk e d
The weights,
as having
of 4" 5 wo uld be g i v e n any
instance
the i n d iv id ual
values.
(I)
and
of less than
In the f ir st example,
(G) and fou r innocent
score be l o w 1.1. index and
twenty
above the 1.8 value of the
fi fteen
t h e o r e t i c a l l y a va lu e
in di vi du al s
L.
seemed to d i s c r i m
indiv id ual s with c/p values
of 1.8 or more.
two
Thus
examined
it seemed r e as on a b le to cons ide r such a value
some di a gn os t ic
the
w hi ch
of
cap acity b e t w e e n gu i l t y and innocent persons.
only five gui lt y 1.1,
innocen t
distributions
G— I variable were
innocent.
that point
the fo ll o w in g
The biserial
(or values)
inate guilty from the
I in the d i r e c t i o n in
d i s c r i m i na ti on b e t w e e n
in mind,
index and the d ic ho to mo us
to det er mi n e
scores
in wh ic h there were i nd iv id u al s
and two
above
scores
as p o s s
pr op o r ti on s
either three
a certain value
guilty b e l o w some such point.
of
gu il ty to or three The _]
70 r fo ll ow in g values w er e used:
+*1#
if the
p r o p o r t i o n of G to
but not 4-2.
-i
if the
reaching
3/2
2/l
p r o p o r t i o n of G to
but not
I was above
reaching
I was
2/l
or more
5/2
4-2.5
if the
p r o p o r t i o n ranged from 5/2 to
4-3.
if the
p r o p o r t i o n was
3/l
3/l
or greater.
Si mi la r ne ga t i v e we ig ht s were used w h e n the p r o p o r tion of innocent to guilty assumed the values An
actual
m or e
d i s t r i b u t i o n will make
concrete.
Table XII
gives
selec tio n
the fr eq ue nc i es
p re p o n d e r a n c e at the classes majority
of G,
at 1.0
of G fr eq ue nc ie s
(five
at 1.1
of cases
obta ine d at the
If only a
for example,
or fo ur
three
An
attempt
limiting
individuals at
discrimina is made to
each
of
included, end,
then
o b t a i n no wei ght s
and the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n betw een guilt
cence w o u l d be c o nf ine d to o n l y a fr a c t i o n of the l.
to
at each tail
small n u m b e r were
the g r e a t e r m a j o r i t y of individuals would w ha ts oev er,
from a
(seven out of twelve).
obta in a p p r o x i m a t e l y tw e n t y five per cent the di st ributi on.
of I to
out of seven)
included and the
limits.
at
is e x e m p li fi ed
in fl ue nci ng the choice of the
values are the n u m b e r ratio
This
1.0 and 1.1 whe re we have a change
The oth er fac tors
tive
versa.
is not
intervals
change f r o m a p r e p o n d e r a n c e and vice
dis
I for Group D.
They are u s u al ly the
of I f r e q u e n c ie s
a majority
for Record
of the up per and lower limits
al t o g e t h e r arbitrary. w h ic h
the w e i g h t i n g pr oc e d u r e the p o i n t - b i s e r i a l
t ri b u t i o n of the c/p P G R values The
indicated.
or i nn o groups j
71 'TABLE XII Point Biserial
Di st ri b u t i o n Record
Class
of c/p P GR Values
I , Group
G
I)
I
2.6 2.5 2.4
we ig ht
2.3 2.2
2.1
N*12
2.0 1.9 1. 8 1.7
1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2
1.1
1.0
we ight
\
.9 .8 .7
all values N«7
N-18 less than
.6 .5
j
72
examined• W h e n the scores,
raw scores were
the n e w c/p,
c/f,
transmuted
into these we i g h te d
and av c/av nc values
for each
value w er e
added a l g e b r a i c a l l y to form alump value for
(1) P G R I;
(2) P G R II;
(6) W.I and
II;
(9) P G R
W
I,
The
(4) W I;
scores
of 1,
2, 4,
indices,
the al ge braic It was
the
several
n e w scores same the
and 5 were
the c/p,
men ta l
e x pe ct ed indices
be tt er
o/f,
records. of the
co mposed
A def in it e
accu ra cy
indicators
seven for records for the
of the
analysis
The
is noted
indices II;
records
II for
as an index
of each p ai r of
values
guilt
in c o m p a r i s o n to the indices in the
of c/p, previous
ranged from sixty-two the
c/f,1 in d i v i
to
sixty-
range in the we i g h t e d values
is from sixty-nine
of the mean w e i g h t e d
groups
or innocence.
in the per cent of
indices
records
The a v e ra ge
each e x p e r i
the per cent a c c u r a c y of each
average
I and
score was used
individual
seventy-six. I and
su mmation of
co mposing
in de te r m i n i n g
increase
corresponding
and
d e s c r i b e d pr e vi ou sl y was made be tw ee n
indices
and u n w e i g h t e d
3,
score 9
of guilt or innocence.
comparative
The
values;
scores
co mp osite value's w ou ld make these
these w e i g h t e d
and av c/av n c . dual
into
Table XIII gives
co mp osite
cent
II;
of each of
and ac/anc;
that the weighting
A g a i n the h i g h e r
in this
ac c u r a c y w it h
and W
indices.
of each of the two me mbers
pair.
of guilt
per
sum of twelve
type of analysis scores
(5) W II;
I, P G R II, W II.
7, and 8 were c o m p o s e d of six w e ig ht ed
was
l.
II;
(7) P G R I and W I; (8) PG R II
three w e i g h t e d 6,
(3) P G R I and
D and ND is
to
values for
seventy-four;
the _j
73 TABLE XIII Per
Cent A c c u r a c y of Composite We i gh te d
Indiees
(C o m p ar at iv e A n a l y s i s ) Group D
Group ND !"
Gompo site Indices
Rec. I
Rec • II
~ ~-
Rec . I Rec. I & II I - -' r
•
Rec • II
Rec. I & II ....
•
PGR
76
77
81
74
63
74
W
76
78
74
so
75
76
P G R and W
71
74
80
74
68
77
69
76
!
L _ .. M e a n Values
74
c o r r e s p o n d i n g av erage five*
The
nocence
is d e fi n it el y
Tho ugh
increased
and
and in scores
per centages
are d e f i n
in co m p a r i s o n to
ranging from si xt y - e i g h t to be tw een the w e i g h t e d
such an index as ac/anc
obtain that
the
is sixty-
as the ac/anc for W- wh ere p e r c e n t
The di ff e r e n c es
son to the n u m b e r
of indices
are
slight
in
in c o m p a r i
vdiich have been summed up to
increase.
Were the w e i g h t e d ninety
as we w e i g h t
in the
of a c c u r a c y are ob t a i n e d
seventy-seven.
b e tw ee n guilt
o v e r w h e l m i n g l y large
indices
indices
instead of single values.
the increases
they are not
dices
76
for the individual
compo sit e
some i s o la te d ages
78
cap ac it y to d i sc ri min at e
and as we use
ite,
76
in d e x to
or n i n e t y - f i v e per cent
f r o m a pra ct ic al
point
of view.
increase the
accuracy to
it wo uld have more
value
Ev ide ntl y a w e i g h t i n g -J
74 r pro ce d ur e on the b as is of two records to
the p r o b l e m of o b ta in in g
A mere
visual
mately
the
ana ly si s
accurate d i a g n o s t i c
of the two
same de gre e
is no
need
cise m e a s u r e m e n t tional
appar ent ly point
a p pr ox i m a t e l y the
for each
Same
problem has been
chapter,
namely,
to
of
in p r e
and c o m p u t a t i o n when a few m i n u t e s ^
in the early part of this
Add iti on a l
approxi
From a pr ac tical
that the an s w e r to the
n u m b e r of tests
indices.-
to waste two to three hours
analysis w o u l d yield
It seems
answer
records yields
of a c c u ra cy as these
refine d m e a s u r e m e n t procedures. vi ew there
is not the
inspec-
results.
indicated
increase the
subject.
C o r re la t io na l A n a l ys is
Using
the w e i g h t e d
scores,
com p u t e d be tw e e n
the several
variable.
X I V gives
Table
the point biserial
com posite the
indices
was
and the
G-I
results.
TABLE X I V Point B i se ri al between Weighted
Comp os it e
Comp osi te
PG R
(I)
PGR
(II)
PGR W
1. L-
& W & W
(I) (II)
(I & II)
or
Innocence
D
Group ND
CO
(I & II)
and Guilt
.40 t .08
.45 t .08
.45 i .07
.49 t .07
. 4 1 t .08
. 3 4 t .08
.36 t .08
.54 ± .07
.50 dT.07
o .
(I & II)
Coe ffi cie nts
Group
Indices
to
W
Indices
.
PGR
Co rr ela tio n
The av er ag e time to make a compa ra ti ve diag no si s on the basis of two records for each m e m be rs of the group was not m or e than two minutes. -*
75 r
E x a m i n a t io n of the table
are of g r e at e r m ag n i t u d e
and the G— I variable.
of this
chapter,
in the previous
section
s u b s t a n t i al ly the pr edi cti ve
possibil
of the c o r r e l a t i o n coefficients.
Ap p l y i n g
Crossed W e i g h t s
A d i f fi c u l t y such we ights
In this was
As
individual
a la bo rious m e t h od of c o m p u ta ti on has
failed to increase
that
"i that the coe fficients
than those b e t we en the
indices
ities
reveals
case,
the
inherent are not
always
sole p u rp os e
to di sc o ve r to what
values
It was
r e co gn iz ed
ily a pp li ca ble on a group mined,
for each
the we ig ht s
could be
is
to other data. indices
of d i f f e r e n t i a
increased by
setting
index. that the wei gh ts w er e not n e c e s s a r To test
their ap p l i c a b i l i t y
that fr om which t he y were
a s s i gn ed to group
group ND and those group
the degree
to ot her data.
other than
ap pl icable
of using the w e i g h t e d
extent
ti o n of guilt or innocence critical
in this m e t h o d of w e i g h t i n g
D were
deter
app lied to
assi gne d to group ND were
applied to
D. Table X V shows the pe rce nta ge of ac cu r a c y
co mposite .indices
of the PGR,
W,
of the
and PGR & W, w it h the
cr ossed weights. It is in all
readily
seen that
the pe rc e n ta ge s
are lower
cases t h a n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r c e n t a g e s
in
Table XIII. Table XVI gives the agre em en t we ig ht s l.
the point
b e t w e e n the
and guilt
biserial
composite
c o e f fi ci en ts
indices with
of
crossed
or innocence.
_]
76 TABLE XV Per Cent A c c u r a c y of with
11
Composite
Indiees
Crossed Weights
(Co mp ar at iv e A n a l y s i s )
Group
D
Group ND
..
.
■
Rec. I
Rec. II
Rec. I & II
Rec • I
Rec • II
Rec • I & II
PGR
60
53
75
58
44
58
W
50
55
58
62
58
73
PGR & wr
60
68
73
71
58
64
M e a n Values
57
59
69
64
53
64
Co mposite Indices
A g a i n it is in all
cases
than
readily in the
seen that the
results
co rr e s p o n d i ng values
are lower
in Table XIV.
T A B L E XVI Point
Biserial
be t we en Compo si te
Co rr el at io n Indices with
and Guilt Compo s ite Indices PGR W
(I. & II)
.05
.16
.35
.25
. 33
II
.10
.13
(I & II)
. 56
.34
PG R II & W
l_
Group ND
.27
I & W I
PGR & W
Crossed Weig hts
Innocence Group D
(I & II)
PGR
or
Coefficients
77
Such weights, tive
cap ac it y
therefore,
of ce rt ai n
value
that mi ght
the d i s c r i m i n a - 1
derived,
but they are of
in their a p p l i c a t i o n to other data.
regard they do not help be v a l id ly and
increase
indices wh en used upon the data
fr o m w h i c h the we ights were doubtful
m ay
in es ta bl is hi ng an index that wo uld
reliably ap pl icable to
be brought
In this
any and all cases
for e x a m i n a t i o n and diagnosis.
Di s c u s s i o n Ce rt ai n c o n cl us ion s study.
Several
found to be more
methods But
readily d i s c er ni bl e
indices have been teste d dia gnostic
fact that we i g h t i n g di ag nostic
are
than others.
the several
accuracy.
Indeed,
Of value
indices has
the best
some have been
nique has
it is gra nted that
its merits,
has y i e l d e d
no one
of the obje ct iv e
deter mi ne w h e t h e r a p e r s on was ter h o w m a n y
such t e c h ni qu es
increase the
diagn os ti c
ce rtain limits.
These
one c o n e er n i ng
procedure,
its
tec hn iq ue
itself w i t h this of
they c annot hope to
que st io ni ng
beyond
reliab ili ty of the
adequacy.
The
re li a b i l i t y is
of records taken,
ex amining t e ch ni qu e
subject matter.
No m a t
are co nd i t i o n e d by two f a c
itself wi th the
st an d a r d i z a t i o n of the
concerns
c e rt ai nl y and u n e r r i n g l y
are used,
limits
tech
of indices
guilty or Innocent.
itself a f un c t i o n of the nu m b e r
ency of the
such a w e i g h t i n g
accu ra cy of the results
the oth er wi th
indices.
index or c o m b i n a t i o n
a value wh ich w o u l d
is the
i n cr ea se d their
of an aly sis was that using the w e i g h t e d
even th oug h
tors,
and
from this
and the c o n s i s t
. The a d eq ua cy of the
question: suitable,
Is the and does
the
proc ed ur e
situ at ion and it fulfil
its
78 i —
—^
‘its purpose? the
Is the
ex pe rimental
lies
in a real
censure,
situation of the
life
or the
re a ct io n of the
situation,
ill will
able. tial
At best the elements
same na ture
associates?
and actual
experiment
lie
in
as w h e n he
to escape punishment,
of his
ancy b e t w e e n e x p er im en ta l
subject to the
hopes
Some d i s c r e p
situations
is i n e v i t
to extract the
essen
of e v e r y d a y life w hi ch are under c o n s i d e r a
tion. For the pr ac t i c a l sults are of definite re lative
significance.
of gu i l t
for more than two,
second place,
ought not to be
the abs en ce
because such as
this
that
ever be a ratio valid more
factors
into
records
can be made. and
of cert ain abn orm al it ie s large cha nges
several
in BR,
an ot he r
records,
it is h i g h l y
or value,
to
consideration,
a partially
or
reason
and taking
it appears
all
suppose that
have to be d et er m i n e d
for
subjective
improbable
di ag nostic
in its a p p l i c a t i o n to r ea so na ble
than four
of guilt or innocence will p r o b a b l y
remain on at least
is meant
is need
days.
the dia gn os is
always
as a basis
There
to fatigue,
for the a d v i s a b i l i t y of taking
that
is the
reaction to the questions.
of record m a y be due
all
re
th er e ma y be records w h i c h can not
of any galvanic
Taking
records
a re liable d ia gn os is
reaction,
t h e m on diff er en t
important
or innocence.
i n t er pr et ed
of p s y c h o l o g ic a l
This type
Most
and p r o b a b l y for more
each subject b e f o r e
In the
i n v e s t i g a t o r these
in ad eq u a c y of having only two
for the di ag n o s i s
from
criminal
level.
By
that there will
of lying,
individuals.
equ ally It is m u c h
a separate value will
each individual,
ap p l i c a b le
only
79 that
individual
able
that
test
period,
during
a limited
period*
such an index could be dev eloped the
in t e r p r e t i n g the
results
It is conceiv-”* in a preliminary-
of v/hich w ou ld form some basis
reactions
of the regular
for
examination.
■U
-i
r C H AP TE R
IV
S U M MA RY AND CONCLUSIONS
This in the The
study pu rp or t ed
to evaluate
cr iteria
p s y c h o g a lv an i c m e t h o d for the de te c t i o n of deception.
in st rument
and the
dev el o p ed by the
late
One h u n dr ed
te ch nique Rev. W.C.
and
seventy
and n i n e t y no n- de l i n q u e n t, to
the various
eigh te en years,
d e si gn ed
to
vestigation
of
boys,
cases.
the takin g of the money. innocent pe r s o n
Summers,
There was
There was
quarter w h e n he de ni ed taking
if he was
of each
There was
a
of each subject who it.
And fi na ll y
subject evaded detection,
records
subject
These
in
a
caught.
A m i n i m u m of two responses
actual
a definite act,
pair.
took t he
pu ni sh m e n t
lie on the part
in the
situation
a guilty pe rs on and an
and actual
if the
in age fr om nine
elements
in each experimental
a reward
eighty delinquent,
ranging
d e fi ni te
there was
S.J..
in an ex pe rimental
clo se ly the
criminal
e x am ina tio n was that
subjects,
were te sted
simulate
of
of the p s y c h o g a l v a n o m e t r i c
to a st an dardized
were
taken.
with
the om i s s i o n of a fe w that were
qu es ti on na ir e
records were then analyzed as follows, found to be uninter-
p retable• 1.
Su bj ec t i v e
analysis
by two judges
of each ex pe ri m e n t a l 2.
Su b j e c t i ve of each
son w it h his 3. O b j e c t i v e L.
records
p a i r in comparison.
an alysis by two
subject
of the
judges
of the records
co ns id e re d ap art from the c o m p a r i
pa r t n er
an a l y s i s
in the
experiment.
of the various
indices,
c/p -I
81 r
(critica 1/pr evious), ac/anc
(average
(critical/following),
cr it ic al/ ave rag e n o n - c r i t i c a l )
for the var iables obj ec ti ve
c/f
P G R and W
analysis
R e s i s t a n c e )5 all
(recovery time),
of the variable BR
co nsi der ed
v a li di ty as dia gno st ic
and
(Basic
in regard to th eir
indices
of tr uth
or f a l s e
hood • The obje cti ve aspects, 1«
analysis
was
carried
out under
several
namely! Gross
analysis
of each
b e t w e e n the gui lty
index for d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
and innocent
subject
in each
pair. 2. C o r r el at io na l
analysis
the re la tio nsh ip dex and the
b e t w e e n the m a g n it ud e
lying
response*
w ith the raw scores 3*
Correla tio nal
of each index to det ermine
The f o l lo wi ng con cl us io ns
of the are
in
This was done both
and wi th w e i g h t e d
analysis
of the
combined
scores. indices.
drawn f ro m this
inves
tigation ! 1. D e ta il ed dices
sta tistical
of d e c e pt io n
yields
analysis
of the various
in the ps yc ho ga l v a n i c
no ob jec tiv e mea sure
in
te chn iqu e
which d is cr im in at es
w it h high deg ree of accu rac y a lying from a t r u t h ful 2.
response*
Di ff ere nce s various
3. The
in the di sc ri mi na ti ve
indices
are
small and unreliable.
co mb i n a t i o n of the
co mpo sit e
separate
index of greater
than any of the
cap ac it y of the
separate
indices yields
di sc ri mi na ti ve
indices.
value
a
82
r
n 4.
C o r r e l a ti on with guilt
5.
coeff ic ien ts
but
for
on which they were
co ef fi c i e nt s 6. The
but
low.
the raw scores,
do not at ta in high pred ic ta bi li ty .
p l i c a t i o n of the w e i g h t s to the that
indices
of the w e i g h t e d composite
are h i g h e r than those
still
various
or in nocence are positive,
C o r r e l at i on c o e f f i ci en ts scores
of the
Ap
group opposite
e st ab li sh ed
lowers
the
obtained.
results are
consistent for t h e
two
groups
tested. 7. The a c cu ra c y of subjective high
enough on the basis
ju st if y a c o nc l u si ve
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is not
of only two
judgment.
two judges for bo th groups, only s e v e n ty -s ev en 8. The ac cu r a c y of
records to
The average
using two
subjective
in cr ea se d with
of records 10.
is
in t e r pr et at io n in
c o r re sp on de nc e be tw ee n the ratings
judges
records,
per cent.
creased w i t h the ta king of additional 9. The
of the
an increase
records. of the two
in the nu mb er
obt ai ne d for each subject.
The p o s s i b i l i t y for accurate d i ag no si s
of gu ilt or
inn ocence by the use
is indicated
in the
results of one
o bt ai n ed
as m a n y
an adequate pairs of the
of 96.1 per
of the two judges,
records
dia gnosis.
se v e n t y - e i g h t
re ex amining
group bec ause
records,
cent with
t h ir te en
of doubtful
he ob t a i n e d an accur acy
individual
out of
when he
as he dee med n e c e s s a r y for After
del in qu en t
or u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e
on
of this tec hn iq ue
analysis
eighty c a s e s ) ; and
(based
97.5 per cent analysis
acc ur ac y with the
(based on all
comparative
forty pairs).
r
~f
Q U ES TI ONN AI RE FORM A DELINQUENT
A. (I)
1.
Is your n a m e ------- ?
2.
Is today Tuesday?
3. Have you any sisters? 4. Did you take the money?
B.
5. Is your mo t h e r
C.
6. Did you get 60 in your last week?
(I I )
7. Have yo u the D.
living? cottage marks
quarter?
8. Did you get a visit
last
Sunday?
9. Did it rain this morning? B. (II)
10* Is your mo th er living? 11. H av e you the quarter?
D.
12. H av e you any
C.
13. Did you get 60 in you r la st week?
(I)
cottage marks
14. Did you take the money? D.
(II)
15. Did you get a visit
last
Sunday?
16. Have you the quarter? 17. B.
(I)
sisters?
Is to day Tuesday?
18. Is y o u r mother
living?
19. Did you take the money? 20.
Is your n a m e ------- ?
The Roman n um er als indicate the critical questions. letters indicate the emotional standards.
L
The
J
r
n QU ES TIO NN AIR E FO RM B DELINQUENT
1. Are you fifteen years 2. A. (I) B.
Is it raining now?
3. Have you any brothers? 4.
Did you take the quarter?
5.
Is y ou r father
6 . Did you C.
living?
eat brea kf ast
this morning?
7. Did you get A in conduct
last week?
8. Have yo u got the money?
(II) D.
9. Have you been let home 10.
(I)
Did yo u take the
on a visit?
quarter?
A•
11. Have yo u any brothers?
B.
12.
Is your father living?
13.
Have you the money?
C.
14.
Did you get A in conduct
D.
15. H av e you been let home
(II)
last week?
for a visit?
B.
17.
Is your father
>-> 00 .
16. Have you the money?
(II)
(I)
old?
living?
Did you take the quarter?
19.
Are you fif teen years
old?
QUE ST ION NA IRE FOR M A NO N- DE LI NQ UE NT
c.
1.
Is yo ur n a m e ---- --?
2.
Is today Tuesday?
3. Have y o u any sisters? 4.
Did you take the money?
B.
5.
Is y ou r mo ther
C.
6 • W er e you ever kept back
(I)
7. Have yo u got the
(II) D.
8. Did y ou ever live 9. Did
B.
it
in an institution?
rain this morning?
Is y o u r mo th er
living?
you got the
quarter?
12. H a v e you any sisters?
C.
1 3 . Were yo u
B.
in school?
Did you take the money?
15.
Did you ever live in an institution?
16.
Have you got the
17.
Is t od ay Tuesday?
quarter?
t—1 .
(II)
ever kept back
14.
Is y o u r mo th er living?
19.
Did yo u take the money?
20.
Is your n a m e ------ ?
00
D.
in school?
quarter?
A•
(I)
L
10.
11. Have
(II)
(I)
living?
r
n QU ES TIO NN AIR E FORM B N O N - DE LIN QUE NT
1. Are you fifteen years 2. A.
B.
C.
Is it raining now?
3. Have you
any brothers?
4.
Did you take the
quarter?
5.
Is y ou r
6.
Did you eat bre akfast
7.
Did you fail
father living? this mor ning?
any of y ou r mi d y e a r
exams ?
8. Have you got the money?
(II) D.
9. Were
you ever chased
by a cop?
10.
Did you take the quarter?
A.
11.
Have you any brothers?
B.
12.
Is your father living?
13.
Have you got the money?
C.
14.
Did you fail
D.
15. Were you ever chased by a cop?
(I)
(II)
any of your mi dy e a r exams ?
16. Ha ve you got the money?
(II) B. (I)
old?
17.
Is your father living?
18.
Did you take the
19.
Are you
quarter?
fifteen years
old?
Fig. 1 Specimen Reaction
o
Nor ma l
Record
u>
I■>
Li >
o
o < si