survey along with demographic information about the sex and age. These judgments were raters’ made on a 5-point likert scale, where 1 2 = 3 = to = ‘Definitely False,’ ‘Possibly False,’ ‘Unable 4 = and 5 = Judge Veracity,’ ‘Possibly True,’ ‘Definitely True.’ We also collected the sex of the rater, as well as asking females a few questions to discern their current place in the menstrual cycle while rating the videos, as we suspected that it may have made a difference. However, we did not include those data in the analysis, as several female raters thought that we were asking about the average length of their menstruation, rather than the average length of their entire menstrual cycle (see Appendix). Lastly, as a control, we had 12 independent raters give attractiveness scores to the 10 male claimants and 10 female claimants on a 5-point likert scale, where 1 = ‘Very Unattractive,’ 2 = 3 = 4 = and 5 = ‘Unattractive,’ ‘Neither Unattractive Nor Attractive,’ ‘Attractive,’ ‘Very We then averaged the scores for each claimant to assign them a mean Attractive.’ We conducted this step so we could examine the effects of claimant “Attractiveness Rating.” attractiveness on deception accuracy in the future, and did not include them in our raters’ analyses at this time. Procedure Participants from the UAlbany Research Pool were recruited to complete the study, for which they were granted course credit. They gathered in a large lecture hall on the the campus for mass testing, facing the projector screen in the room. These participants, who were different from the claimants, will be referred to as raters from now on. Raters were handed copies of the consent form and coded surveys when they entered. 15 minutes after the start time of the experiment, the research assistants read the consent form to the raters, collected signed consent forms from raters, granted course credit to raters, and then requested that they complete the
survey along with demographic information about the raters’ sex and age. These judgments were made on a 5-point likert scale, where 1 = ‘Definitely False,’ 2 = ‘Possibly False,’ 3 = ‘Unable to Judge Veracity,’ 4 = ‘Possibly True,’ and 5 = ‘Definitely True.’ We also collected the sex of the rater, as well as asking females a few questions to discern their current place in the menstrual cycle while rating the videos, as we suspected that it may have made a difference. However, we did not include those data in the analysis, as several female raters thought that we were asking about the average length of their menstruation, rather than the average length of their entire menstrual cycle (see Appendix). Lastly, as a control, we had 12 independent raters give attractiveness scores to the 10 male claimants and 10 female claimants on a 5-point likert scale, where 1 = ‘Very Unattractive,’ 2 = ‘Unattractive,’ 3 = ‘Neither Unattractive Nor Attractive,’ 4 = ‘Attractive,’ and 5 = ‘Very Attractive.’ We then averaged the scores for each claimant to assign them a mean “Attractiveness Rating.” We conducted this step so we could examine the effects of claimant attractiveness on raters’ deception accuracy in the future, and did not include them in our analyses at this time. Procedure Participants from the UAlbany Research Pool were recruited to complete the study, for which they were granted course credit. They gathered in a large lecture hall on the the campus for mass testing, facing the projector screen in the room. These participants, who were different from the claimants, will be referred to as raters from now on. Raters were handed copies of the consent form and coded surveys when they entered. 15 minutes after the start time of the experiment, the research assistants read the consent form to the raters, collected signed consent forms from raters, granted course credit to raters, and then requested that they complete the
Aboul-Seoud_Thesis_2013.docx