Diagnosing estimate distortion due to significance testing in literature on detection of deception.
Studies journals typically report or feature results significant by statistical test criterion. This is a bias that prevents obtaining precise estimates of the magnitude of any underlying effect. It is severe with small effect sizes and small numbers of measurements. To illustrate the problem and a diagnosis technique, results of published studies on the detection of deception are graphed. The literature contains large effect sizes affirming that deceptive responses in contrast to truthful responses are associated with more reactive Skin Resistance Responses. These effect sizes when graphed on the x-axis against n on the y-axis are distributed as funnel graphs. A subset of studies show support for predicted small to medium effects on different physiological measures, individual differences, and condition manipulations. These effect sizes graphed by sample ns follow negative correlations, suggesting that effect sizes from published values of t, F, and zeta are exaggerations.
Bradley
M T
MT
Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 5050, Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L5, Canada.
Stoica
G
G
D008192:Deception; D005712:Galvanic Skin Response / Q000502:physiology; D006339:Heart Rate / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D011589:Psychology, Experimental / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012119:Respiration; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological