This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Also, a special thank you to the many families who participated in this study, and the volunteers and research staff who helped with the data collection.

NOTE: The following protocol was developed in accordance with the ethical standards approved by the McGill University Research Ethics Board. For all studies with children and involving deception, it is required to obtain Ethics Approval from the university or institution. Please note that different Ethics Boards may have different requirements.
1. Preparation for the Experiment
<ol>
	<li>Instruct E1 to memorize the necessary dialogue for each experimental condition (Appendix B), and E2 should become familiar with the questions in the interview protocol (Appendix A). <a href="https://www.jove.com/files/ftp_upload/53773/JOVE_Appendix_A.docx" target="_blank">Please click here to download Appendix A.</a> <a href="https://www.jove.com/files/ftp_upload/53773/JOVE_Appendix_B.docx" target="_blank">Please click here to download Appendix B.</a></li>
	<li>Test only one participant at a time. Use three separate rooms for the current study: testing room, interview room, common room.</li>
	<li>Use a testing room for the interactions between E1 and the child participants.</li>
	<li>Place the necessary protocols and materials for the filler-activities, and the wallet in the testing room. Position the wallet in a concealed location, such as behind a flowerpot on a table. Please ensure that the child does not see the wallet before the theft situation with E1.</li>
	<li>Put twenty-dollars inside the wallet. Also, place fake identification cards (e.g., an old bus pass and ID cards) in the wallet to give the impression to the participant that the wallet belongs to someone else.</li>
	<li>Place a jacket (or other item) near the wallet to be retrieved by E1 immediately prior to the theft situation.</li>
	<li>Place &#34;Testing in Progress&#34; sign on the door of the testing room to avoid disturbances.</li>
	<li>Use an interview room for the interview with E2 and the child participant; ensure that the room has a table, two-chairs and hidden cameras that record the interview.
	<ol>
		<li>Prepare the interview room to include a table with two chairs facing each other. 
		NOTE: The interview protocol and clipboard should not be in the interview room because immediately prior to the interview between E2 and the child participant, E2 states that they are going with E1 to the testing room to get their clipboard with the interview questions. However, E2 is permitted to use the interview script during the interview.</li>
		<li>Ensure that the video-recording devices in the interview room can be easily activated when the interview begins.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Instruct the parents and other family members to remain in a common room for the duration of the study. 
	NOTE: The child participants are in this room at the beginning of the study when parents are completing the consent form. After the consent form is completed, child participants will not return to this room or interact with their parents or family until the end of the study.</li>
	<li>Place the consent and demographics forms on a clipboard in the common room.</li>
</ol>
2. Participants
<ol>
	<li>When recruiting participants, instruct the recruiters to provide the legal guardians of the participants with a detailed explanation of the study. 
	NOTE: To avoid influencing participant behavior during the study, parents should be discouraged from disclosing details about the theft and interview to the children. Child participants must be fluent in the language of the protocols, and have no experience participating in any other studies (e.g., lie-telling research) that could lead them to identify the experimental nature of the theft and interview situations. Furthermore, children with physical, intellectual and/or developmental disabilities that prevent them from discerning the differences between truths and lies should not be recruited for this study.</li>
	<li>Instruct the researcher who is the instigator of the theft (E1) to select the experimental condition for the child participant.
	<ol>
		<li>Select the condition before the study begins.</li>
		<li>Consider the age and gender of the participant when selecting the conditions; thus, ensure that each condition has a similar number of participants from each age and gender groups. 
		NOTE: Within each age and gender groups, counter-balance the conditions. For example, if E1 selects the FD condition for a male participant in the 6-7 year old age group, this condition cannot be used again for this age or gender group until the other three conditions have been selected. Ensure that the interviewer (E2) is not aware of the experimental condition to avoid influencing their behavior during the interview. 
		NOTE: Do not change conditions once the study begins. Only in extraordinary circumstances should E1 be instructed to change the condition, such as believing that a particular child will experience severe emotional distress from witnessing a theft and/or being asked to lie. In this situation, E1 should be asked to change the condition to true denial, whereby the child is asked to tell the truth and does not witness a theft.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Prior to commencing the study, ask the legal guardians to complete a consent form that explains the procedures and purpose of the research. 
	NOTE: The true nature of the experiment should not be disclosed to the child participant until the end of the study.</li>
	<li>Instruct the parents to complete a demographics form that provides any demographic information that is needed for the study.</li>
</ol>
3. Filler Activities
<ol>
	<li>After the parents have completed the consent form, instruct E1 to ask the child participant to go with them to the testing room.</li>
	<li>Prior to commencing the filler activities, notify the child that they will engage in some games with E1, and that they are free to stop the study at any time if they feel uncomfortable or upset.
	<ol>
		<li>If a child shows or articulates emotional distress at any time during the study, instruct the researchers (E1 and E2) to stop the study immediately and return the child to their parents to be debriefed about the true nature of the study.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Begin the filler-activities after the child provides verbal assent that they understand the instructions of the study. &#160; 
	NOTE: The filler-activities should take between 30-40 min. The purpose of the activities is to help build rapport between E1 and the child participants, as well as to disguise the true nature of the study. 
	NOTE: Filler activities can include a series of cognitive tasks (e.g., standardized verbal ability task) or they can be a game. The purpose of these tasks is to engage the child, and for E1 to develop a rapport with the child.</li>
</ol>
4. Theft Situation
<ol>
	<li>After completing the filler activities, instruct E1 to grab his or her jacket (or another item) before going with the child to the interview room.&#160;
	<ol>
		<li>Locate the wallet near the jacket. Open the wallet, and notify the child that the wallet belongs to another researcher.</li>
		<li>Remove twenty-dollars from the wallet, and depending on the condition the child was placed in, either take the money or place it back in the wallet.</li>
		<li>During the theft situation, if the child appears distracted, instruct E1 to get the child&#39;s attention before engaging with the wallet.</li>
		<li>Place the wallet back in its original position. Discourage E1 from giving any additional information about the wallet or their rationale for taking or leaving the money. If the child asks about the wallet, divert the conversation, such as by praising the child&#39;s performance on the filler tasks.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>After the wallet situation, go with the child to the interview room. Leave the jacket or other item (that E1 was looking for) in the testing room.</li>
</ol>
5. Setting the Experimental Condition
<ol>
	<li>In the interview room, instruct E2 to greet E1 and the child. Next, have E1 introduce the child to E2. Instruct E1 to state that they forgot their jacket in the testing room. At this time, E2 should indicate that they forgot their clipboard with the interview questions in the same room. Have E2 go with E1 to the testing room to get the questions. 
	NOTE: Later, the child learns that E2 thought that E1 stole money from the wallet; thus, the purpose of the interaction between E1 and E2 is to help the child acknowledge how E2 became aware of the situation with the wallet.</li>
	<li>Prior to E2 leaving the room with E1, instruct the child to complete a filler activity (e.g., a puzzle) while they are gone.</li>
	<li>After 2 min, instruct E1 to return to the interview room without E2. During this time, have E1 ask the child to tell a truth or a lie about the situation with the wallet. Refer to Appendix B for the dialogue used by E1 for setting each condition.
	<ol>
		<li>False Accusation Condition (FA)
		<ol>
			<li>Have children witness E1 leave the money in the wallet; however, ask them to tell a lie to E2 by falsely accusing E1 of taking the money.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>False Denial Condition (FD)
		<ol>
			<li>Take the money from the wallet, but ask the children to falsely deny the theft to E2 by saying that E1 did not take the money.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>True Accusation Condition (TA)
		<ol>
			<li>Have children witness E1 take the money from the wallet, and ask them to truthfully accuse E1 of taking the money.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>True Denial Condition (TD)
		<ol>
			<li>Do not take the money from the wallet. Ask the children to truthfully deny the theft to E2. 
			NOTE: By the end of the interaction with E1, the child should understand what E1 is asking them to do by repeating the instructions of their condition. If the child does not appear to understand what is asked of them, ask E1 to repeat the instructions of the condition to them. Discourage E1 from providing any additional information about the theft situation or the condition. 
			NOTE: The child does not have to agree to comply with the instructions for each condition. For example, discourage E1 from further persuading the child if they state that they are unwilling to lie for them.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Instruct E1 to leave the room after setting the condition.</li>
	<li>One min after E1 sets the condition and leaves the room, instruct E2 to return to interview the child about the events with E1.</li>
</ol>
6. Interview
<ol>
	<li>If the child wants to talk about the wallet situation before the interview, instruct E2 to divert the conversation.</li>
	<li>After the child completes the activity (e.g., puzzle), begin the interview with the child. Refer to Appendix A for the interview script.
	<ol>
		<li>Ask baseline questions (n = 2) at the beginning of the interview to build rapport between E2 and the child, as well as to provide baseline data regarding each child&#39;s verbal ability and/or willingness to disclose information.</li>
		<li>Use open-ended questions (n = 3) throughout the interview to encourage children to describe their experiences with E1 in their own words. Moreover, use prompts after each question (e.g., &#8220;Can you tell me more?&#8221;) to provide the children with additional opportunities to disclose information. Below are the types of open-ended questions that are used:
		<ol>
			<li>Ask two free-recall questions that require the children to describe in as much detail as possible everything they remembered from their experiences with E1. Ask one free-recall question immediately after the baseline questions, and ask the second one at the end of the interview.</li>
			<li>Ask children to describe everything they remembered from their time with E1, but in reverse-order. Describing events in several orders has shown to increase the cognitive effort required to maintain a lie34, 37.</li>
			<li>Ask closed-ended questions (n = 7) to encourage children to provide short and direct information about the wallet situation.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>To maintain consistent interview protocols for all participants, discourage E2 from rephrasing or altering the information provided in the interview script.</li>
	<li>If the child does not understand a question, restate the question to them.</li>
	<li>To avoid influencing the length, veracity and quality of the child&#39;s testimony, do not allow E2 to provide any additional prompts (outside of those in the script) and/or reinforcements for the child&#39;s responses. For this reason, instruct E2 to maintain a consistent tone of voice throughout the interview, and to avoid using non-verbal behaviors that could reinforce a response, such as nodding or shaking of the head.</li>
</ol>
7. Concluding the Study
<ol>
	<li>After completing the interview, bring the child into the common-room. Next, instruct E1 and E2 to debrief the child about the deceptive nature of the study, and to tell him or her that the theft was pretend and did not actually occur. 
	NOTE: Furthermore, ensure that E1 or E2 tells the child that their involvement in the study may help other children in the future, and that they should tell their guardians if they are ever asked to lie by another adult.</li>
	<li>After the debriefing, compensate the participants and thank them for their involvement in the study.</li>
</ol>
8. Preparation of Interview Transcripts
<ol>
	<li>Create written manuscripts of each child&#39;s verbal responses and non-verbal behaviors throughout the interview based on the video-recordings.</li>
	<li>Transcribe all information provided by the child, even if they repeat certain details multiple times.</li>
	<li>Do not use acronyms or symbols (e.g., numbers) when transcribing the video-recordings.</li>
	<li>Instruct the transcribers to record participant responses below the appropriate question being asked. Tell them to only record the behaviors and statements of the interviewer if they differ considerably from the interview script.</li>
</ol>
9. Coding Children&#39;s Open-ended Responses
<ol>
	<li>Evaluate the amount and type of information children disclose on the 3 open-ended questions. 
	NOTE: Ensure that the three coders are blind to the experimental condition of the child they are evaluating.</li>
	<li>Calculate the children&#39;s total number of words (Response length) and details about the wallet and theft situation (Event Details). 
	NOTE: Response Length is the number of words the child uses across the three open-ended questions. A word processing program can be used to determine the child&#39;s response length. 
	NOTE: Event Details includes information that the child discloses about the situation with the wallet in their three open-ended responses. Record each individual and new detail about the wallet situation. For example, the sentence, &#34;E1 took the money from inside the wallet&#34;, contains five event details. However, if the child says in a later question, &#34;E1 took twenty dollars from inside the wallet&#34;, then only two new event details were provided.</li>
	<li>Instruct the coders to evaluate the Event Details of each script independently from the other coders to avoid any potential biases in the coding of the scripts. Use the mean number of words and event details from the three coders for statistical analyses.</li>
</ol>
10. Coding Children&#39;s Closed-ended Responses
<ol>
	<li>Instruct one coder to evaluate the children&#39;s abilities to maintain their stories across the 4 closed-ended questions listed in Appendix C. Refer to Appendix C for the coding measures used to evaluate children&#39;s maintenance of their story in the four experimental conditions. <a href="https://www.jove.com/files/ftp_upload/53773/JOVE-Appendix_C(Feb_25,_2016).docx" target="_blank">Please click here to download Appendix C.</a></li>
	<li>First, determine if the child told a truth or lie during the interview.
	<ol>
		<li>Use the final closed-ended question (&#34;Did E1 take the money from the wallet?&#34;) to determine if a child is telling a truth (scored as 0) or a lie (scored as 1) about the potential theft. 
		NOTE: Children who provide reports that do not comply with their condition should not be included in the maintenance of story assessment. Thus, children who tell the truth in the lie-telling conditions or a lie in the truth conditions are excluded from this analysis.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Give children one-point for each closed-ended response that supports their true or false report (total possible maintenance score of 4).</li>
	<li>Use statistical tests to analyze data from the study. For example, perform chi-square or logistic regressions for children&#39;s willingness to lie data, and linear regressions on children&#39;s maintenance scores.</li>
</ol>

The authors declare that they have no competing financial or conflicts of interests in regards to this manuscript.

The current methodology is designed to provide researchers with an ecologically valid method for evaluating different types of children&#39;s true and false reports. The representative findings suggest that the current methodology can encourage children to provide both false denials and false accusations about a high-cost event. In comparison to past studies that only examined children&#39;s false denials after witnessing a low-cost event (e.g., breaking a toy) 8, 9, 12, the current study can produce ...

The primary goal of the present study is to provide an ecologically valid method for evaluating children&#39;s true and false testimonies in an experimental setting. Children&#39;s intentional false reports in police and forensic interviews have lowered the public&#39;s trust in the validity of child testimonies because of the potential negative consequences to the accused, accuser and criminal justice system3-6. A considerable amount of research has evaluated children&#39;s ability to falsely deny an event or transgression to protect someone7-12, yet considerably less is known about children&#39;s abilities to make a false accusation13-14. Even though children do make false denials and/or purposefully omit information in their testimonies, there have also been numerous real-life cases of children being persuaded to falsely accuse someone of committing a transgression, such as false allegations of abuse in custody battles5, 15-18. By having children willingly produce false denials and false accusations in an experimental setting, the current research methodology is designed to provide a stronger understanding of the types of false reports children can tell in their eyewitness testimonies.
Previous lie-telling research with children has generally involved a low-cost situation, whereby they were telling a lie about a non-threatening event, such as a broken toy9, 12, 14. Children who provide testimonies to police officers or forensic interviewers often disclose information about a high cost-event, such as witnessing a crime or experiencing abuse. Being asked to recall information about a non-threatening event may not promote deceitful behaviors in the same manner as when children actually witness a serious transgression or crime. For instance, children who witness a crime may experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress19-20; thus, they are often reluctant to discuss their potentially traumatic experience(s) with others21-22. To improve the understanding of children&#39;s ability to generate false reports in situations where they are asked to provide a testimony, the present study has children tell a truth or lie about an alleged theft that they may (or may not) have witnessed.
Past experimental research on children&#39;s lie-telling skills has typically used three-to-four follow-up questions to evaluate whether children&#39;s initial false claims were maintained throughout the interview10-11, 23-25. In addition, many of these interview protocols have relied on closed-ended questions where a child had to provide one-word responses, such as &#34;Yes&#34; or &#34;No&#34;. Although such methodology does provide some insight into children&#39;s deceptive capabilities, the findings may not generalize to real-life settings where child witnesses are being questioned about an event. When providing a testimony to police officers or forensic interviewers, children often have to answer many questions that require them to provide both closed and open-ended responses; therefore, if a child is telling a lie, they will have to maintain it over multiple types of follow-up questions. To address this limitation, the present study will use a lengthier interview method to assess children&#39;s lie-telling skills, and the characteristics of their testimonies. The interview protocol is influenced by the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) protocol, which are ecologically valid police interview techniques that are used for increasing the amount of information obtained from an eyewitness26-30. Rather than relying on a few closed-ended questions, the interview consists of two baselines, three open-ended, and seven closed-ended questions (refer to Appendix A). The larger number and variety of questions permits for the examination of age, gender and experimental condition-based differences in the length and types of information children are willing to disclose in their testimonies.
In order to appear convincing, lie-tellers often have to simultaneously manage their verbal and non-verbal behaviors, and assess the mental state of the lie-recipient10, 31-32. However, when interview questions require increased cognitive effort from the responder, lie-tellers are more likely than truth-tellers to make noticeable errors throughout their testimony33-34. Moreover, increasing the mental effort required by the responder actually discourages lie-telling35, as the cognitive load of telling a lie and responding convincingly to challenging and unexpected questions can be too cognitively taxing for some34, 36. For these reasons, police and forensic interviewers have been encouraged to use open-ended questions and prompts, such as those in the Cognitive Interview, to increase the cognitive effort required by the interviewee33-34, 35. In addition, these types of questions give honest responders multiple opportunities to elaborate on the information they previously disclosed, which can lead to more detailed and accurate testimonies30, 38-39. The current methodology can therefore provide data on children&#39;s true and false testimonies when they are asked generalizable interview questions and prompts that are intended to increase the cognitive load of the responder, and the amount of information they are willing to disclose about an event.
To overcome limitations with past studies, the current research methodology utilizes four-experimental conditions to evaluate the different types of true and false reports children are willing to provide regarding an alleged theft. In this study, children (ages 6-11) will witness an instigator (E1) discover a stranger&#39;s wallet with twenty dollars in it. Children are then asked by E1 to lie to an interviewer (E2) by either falsely denying a theft that occurred (False Denial condition), or by falsely accusing E1 of a theft that did not take place (False Accusation condition). In addition, some children will be asked to tell the truth about a theft that did (True Accusation condition) or did not take place (True Denial condition). Children are then to be interviewed by a second researcher (E2) about the events that took place with E1. The interview is to be videotaped, and later transcribed into written transcripts. Coders then record the number of words and wallet-related details disclosed by the children on the open-ended questions; responses on the closed-ended questions are used to evaluate children&#39;s ability to maintain their true and false reports.

<table><tbody><tr><td>Testing Room</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>The room where the rapport-building activities and theft occur. The room should have at least two chairs and two tables. One table will be used for the rapport-building activities and interactions between the instigator (E1) and the child participant. The second table will have the jacket and wallet placed on it. Other items, such as books, a labtop, flowers and office items can be placed on the second table to conceal the wallet.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Common Room</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Parents and other family members will remain in this room for the duration of the study. Comfortable chairs, a table, magazines, and age-appropriate toys will make the overall study experience more enjoyable for the family.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Interview Room</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>The room that will be used to interview the children. The room should have a table, two-chairs, and hidden cameras to record the interview.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Consent Form</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Form that the parents complete prior to beginning the study. It should include a detailed explanation of the study, along with all the ethics considerations. Parents should sign this form before commencing the activities with the child.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Demographics Form</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>A form that that provides any demographic information that is needed for the study, such as the race, income, religious background, and level of education of the family.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Rapport-building Activities</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Age-appropriate games and cognitive measures, such as a standardized verbal ability task. The rapport-building activities should take between 30 to 40 min.</td></tr><tr><td>Jacket</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>A jacket that would realistically be worn according to the weather outside.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Wallet</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>A gender-neutral wallet that includes fake identification cards, such as an old bus pass, and a twenty-dollar bill.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Puzzle</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>A child-friendly puzzle that can be completed in 5 to 10 min. The current study utilized a puzzle that included 30 pieces.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Interview Script</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>The interview script used in the current study.</td></tr><tr><td>Hidden Cameras</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Any camera that can easily be hidden from the child participants. The camera(s) should also be able to record individual HD videos for at least 30 min.</td></tr><tr><td>Word Processing Program</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Any word processing program that can be used to transcribe the videos. This program should also be able to count the number of words in a document.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Statistical Analysis Program</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>Any statistical analysis program that can perform chi-square or logistic regressions for children&amp;rsquo;s willingness to lie data, and linear regressions on children&amp;rsquo;s maintenance scores.&amp;nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table>

an experimental analysis of children's ability to provide a false report about a crime

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting false testimonies and interviewing children have restricted the generalizability of the findings. The primary aim of the current study is to provide an easy-to-administer and ecologically valid method for measuring the veracity and quality of school-aged children's (ages 6-11) testimonies when they are asked to provide different types of true and false reports. Moreover, the methodology enables researchers to examine the social and developmental factors that could influence the credibility of a child's testimony. In the current study, children will witness a theft, and are then asked to either falsely deny the transgression, falsely accuse a researcher of the theft, or tell the truth. Afterwards, children are to be interviewed by a second researcher using a thorough and ecologically valid interview protocol that requires children to provide closed-ended and free-recall responses about the events with the instigator (E1). Coders then evaluate the length and number of theft-related details the children give throughout the interview, as well as their ability to maintain their true and false reports. The representative results indicate that the truth and lie-telling conditions elicit the intended behaviors from the children. The open-ended interview questions encouraged children to provide free-recall information about their experiences with E1. Moreover, findings from the closed-ended questions suggest that children are significantly better at maintaining their lies with age, and when producing a false denial compared to a false accusation. Results from the current study can be used to develop a greater understanding of the characteristics of children's true and false testimonies about crime, which can potentially benefit law enforcement, legal staff and professionals who interview children.

Patterns of Lie-telling Behavior
Figure 1 shows the rate of children&#39;s lie-telling behavior in each experimental condition. As reported in Wyman, Taieb-Lachance, Foster, Crossman and Talwar (under review), child participants were more willing to tell a lie in the lie-telling conditions compared to the truth-conditions; however, no differences were found in the percentage of lie-tellers in the FD and FA condi...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime at JoVE.com

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

The current methodology is designed to provide an ecologically relevant approach for measuring the veracity, length and quality of children's true and false testimonies. Implications of the current methodology for future research and professionals who interview children will also be discussed.

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting ...

an-experimental-analysis-children-s-ability-to-provide-false-report

Research

JoVE Journal

Behavior

8.5K Views.  McGill University. The current methodology is designed to provide an ecologically relevant approach for measuring the veracity, length and quality of children's true and false testimonies. Implications of the current methodology for future research and professionals who interview children will also be discussed.

Video: An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Measurement of Fronto-limbic Activity Using an Emotional Oddball Task in Children with Familial High Risk for Schizophrenia

Adolescence is a critical developmental period where the early symptoms of schizophrenia frequently emerge. First-degree relatives of people with schizophrenia who are at familial high risk (FHR) may show similar cognitive and emotional changes. However, the neurological changes underlying the emergence of these symptoms remain unclear. This study sought to identify differences in frontal, striatal, and limbic regions in children and adolescents with FHR using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Groups of 21 children and adolescents at FHR and 21 healthy controls completed an emotional oddball task that relied on selective attention and the suppression of task-irrelevant emotional information. The standard oddball task was modified to include aversive and neutral distractors in order to examine potential group differences in both emotional and executive processing. This task was designed specifically to allow for children and adolescents to complete by keeping the difficulty and emotional image content age-appropriate. Furthermore, we demonstrate a technique for suitable fMRI registration for children and adolescent participants. This paradigm may also be applied in future studies to measure changes in neural activity in other populations with hypothesized developmental changes in executive and emotional processing.

This paper describes how to use the emotional oddball task and fMRI to measure brain activation in children and adolescents at familial high risk for schizophrenia (FHR).&#160;FMRI was used to measure differences in fronto-striato-limbic regions during an emotional oddball task. Children with FHR exhibited abnormal functional activation during adolescence.

Adolescence is a critical developmental period where the early symptoms of schizophrenia frequently emerge. First-degree relatives of people with ...

Eye Tracking, Cortisol, and a Sleep vs. Wake Consolidation Delay: Combining Methods to Uncover an Interactive Effect of Sleep and Cortisol on Memory

Although rises in cortisol can benefit memory consolidation, as can sleep soon after encoding, there is currently a paucity of literature as to how these two factors may interact to influence consolidation. Here we present a protocol to examine the interactive influence of cortisol and sleep on memory consolidation, by combining three methods: eye tracking, salivary cortisol analysis, and behavioral memory testing across sleep and wake delays. To assess resting cortisol levels, participants gave a saliva sample before viewing negative and neutral objects within scenes. To measure overt attention, participants&#8217; eye gaze was tracked during encoding. To manipulate whether sleep occurred during the consolidation window, participants either encoded scenes in the evening, slept overnight, and took a recognition test the next morning, or encoded scenes in the morning and remained awake during a comparably long retention interval. Additional control groups were tested after a 20&#160;min&#160;delay in the morning or evening, to control for time-of-day effects. Together, results showed that there is a direct relation between resting cortisol at encoding and subsequent memory, only following a period of sleep. Through eye tracking, it was further determined that for negative stimuli, this beneficial effect of cortisol on subsequent memory may be due to cortisol strengthening the relation between where participants look during encoding and what they are later able to remember. Overall, results obtained by a combination of these methods uncovered an interactive effect of sleep and cortisol on memory consolidation.

We present a protocol used to discover an interactive effect between sleep and cortisol on memory consolidation, particularly for negative arousing images. Specifically, the experimental design utilizes eye tracking, salivary cortisol analysis, and behavioral memory testing &#8211; methods that can be used with both healthy and clinical participants.

Although rises in cortisol can benefit memory consolidation, as can sleep soon after encoding, there is currently a paucity of literature as to how these ...

Experimental Assessment of Mouse Sociability Using an Automated Image Processing Approach

Mouse is the preferred model organism for testing drugs designed to increase sociability. We present a method to quantify mouse sociability in which the test mouse is placed in a standardized apparatus and relevant behaviors are assessed in three different sessions (called session I, II, and III).
The apparatus has three compartments (see Figure 1), the left and right compartments contain an inverted cup which can house a mouse (called &#34;stimulus mouse&#34;).
In session I, the test mouse is placed in the cage and its mobility is characterized by the number of transitions made between compartments. In session II, a stimulus mouse is placed under one of the inverted cups and the sociability of the test mouse is quantified by the amounts of time it spends near the cup containing the enclosed stimulus mouse vs. the empty inverted cup. In session III, the inverted cups are removed and both mice interact freely. The sociability of the test mouse in session III is quantified by the number of social approaches it makes toward the stimulus mouse and by the number of times it avoids a social approach by the stimulus mouse.
The automated evaluation of the movie detects the nose of the test mouse, which allows the determination of all described sociability measures in session I and II (in session III, approaches are identified automatically but classified manually). To find the nose, the image of an empty cage is digitally subtracted from each frame of the movie and the resulting image is binarized to identify the mouse pixels. The mouse tail is automatically removed and the two most distant points of the remaining mouse are determined; these are close to nose and base of tail. By analyzing the motion of the mouse and using continuity arguments, the nose is identified.
<img alt="Figure 1" src="/files/ftp_upload/52508/52508fig1.jpg" /> 
Figure 1. Assessment of Sociability During 3 sessions. Session I (top): Acclimation of test mouse to the cage. Session II (middle): Test mouse moving freely in the cage while the stimulus mouse is enclosed in an inverted cup. Session III (bottom): Both test mouse and stimulus mouse are allowed to move freely and interact with each other.

This protocol describes a method to quantify mouse sociability. Mice are videotaped as they move and interact in a special cage. Movie processing allows for the automated quantification of sociability with excellent accuracy and reliability.

Mouse is the preferred model organism for testing drugs designed to increase sociability. We present a method to quantify mouse sociability in which the ...

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm

The paradigm detailed in this manuscript describes an applied experimental method based on real police investigations during which an eyewitness or victim to a crime may create from memory a holistic facial composite of the culprit with the assistance of a police operator. The aim is that the composite is recognized by someone who believes that they know the culprit. For this paradigm, participants view a culprit actor on video and following a delay, participant-witnesses construct a holistic system facial composite. Controls do not construct a composite. From a series of arrays of computer-generated, but realistic faces, the holistic system construction method primarily requires participant-witnesses to select the facial images most closely meeting their memory of the culprit. Variation between faces in successive arrays is reduced until ideally the final image possesses a close likeness to the culprit. Participant-witness directed tools can also alter facial features, configurations between features and holistic properties (e.g., age, distinctiveness, skin tone), all within a whole face context. The procedure is designed to closely match the holistic manner by which humans&#8217; process faces. On completion, based on their memory of the culprit, ratings of composite-culprit similarity are collected from the participant-witnesses. Similar ratings are collected from culprit-acquaintance assessors, as a marker of composite recognition likelihood. Following a further delay, all participants &#8212; including the controls&#160;&#8212; attempt to identify the culprit in either a culprit-present or culprit-absent video line-up, to replicate circumstances in which the police have located the correct culprit, or an innocent suspect. Data of control and participant-witness line-up outcomes are presented, demonstrating the positive influence of holistic composite construction on identification accuracy. Correlational analyses are conducted to measure the relationship between assessor and participant-witness composite-culprit similarity ratings, delay, identification accuracy, and confidence to examine which factors influence video line-up outcomes.

This applied experimental paradigm replicates circumstances by which an eyewitness to a real crime may create a holistic facial composite of the culprit from memory, and then attempt to identify the culprit from a video line-up containing the culprit or one in which he or she is not present.

The paradigm detailed in this manuscript describes an applied experimental method based on real police investigations during which an eyewitness or victim ...

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

The Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task is a false memory paradigm in which subjects are presented with lists of semantically related words (e.g., nurse, hospital, etc.) at encoding. After a delay, subjects are asked to recall or recognize these words. In the recognition memory version of the task, subjects are asked whether they remember previously presented words, as well as related (but never presented) critical lure words (&#39;doctor&#39;). Typically, the critical word is recognized with high probability and confidence. This false memory effect has been robustly demonstrated across short (e.g., immediate, 20 min) and long (e.g., 1, 7, 60 d) delays between encoding and memory testing. A strength of using this task to study false memory is its simplicity and short duration. If encoding and retrieval components of the task occur in the same session, the entire task can take as little as 2 - 30 min. However, although the DRM task is widely considered a &#39;false memory&#39; paradigm, some researchers consider DRM illusions to be based on the activation of semantic memory networks in the brain, and argue that such semantic gist-based false memory errors may actually be useful in some scenarios (e.g., remembering the forest for the trees; remembering that a word list was about &#34;doctors&#34;, even though the actual word &#34;doctor&#34; was never presented for study). Remembering the gist of experience (instead of or along with individual details) is arguably an adaptive process and this task has provided a great deal of knowledge about the constructive, adaptive nature of memory. Therefore, researchers should use caution when discussing the overall reach and implications of their experiments when using this task to study &#39;false memory&#39;, as DRM memory errors may not adequately reflect false memories in the real world, such as false memory in eyewitness testimony, or false memories of sexual abuse.

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Here we present the Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task, a tool to study false memories in the laboratory. Subjects study lists of semantically related words (e.g.,&#160;nurse, sick, etc.), and later falsely remember an unstudied word (doctor) that represents the gist, or theme, of the word list.

The Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task is a false memory paradigm in which subjects are presented with lists of semantically related words ...

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children's strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of transgression was intended to be too tempting to resist, so that children's spontaneous lie-telling behavior in the presence of irreversible evidence due to the transgression could be observed. Conducted in a developmental psychology laboratory behind a one-way mirror and video recorded with a hidden camcorder, the protocol starts with a guessing game where the child is given three trials to guess the identities of hidden objects under an upside down cup. The experimenter gives hints in the first two trials to make sure the child "guess" them correctly. At the beginning of the final trial, the experimenter leaves the room briefly and asks the child not to peek under the cup. If the child could not resist the temptation and peeks, small particles previously filled in the cup would scatter on a grooved surface. Upon the experimenter's return, the child is asked if he/she has peeked. If he/she denies transgression contrary to the presence of the physical evidence, he/she is asked to explain why the particles are on the table. Three responses could be observed in the procedure, including the initial transgression, truth-telling or lie-telling behavior if the child peeked, and the strategic lie-telling behavior in the presence of the physical evidence.

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children&#39;s strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of transgression was intended to be too tempting to resist, so that children&#39;s spontaneous lie-telling behavior in the presence of irreversible evidence due to the transgression could be observed.

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children's strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of ...

Marginal Dishonesty: The Adding-to-10 Task

Source: Julian Wills &#38; Jay Van Bavel&#8212;New York University
Classical economic theory asserts that people are rational and self-interested. In addition to seeking wealth and status, people are motivated by other goals. As a result, financial motives can sometimes be dwarfed by other internal needs, such as maintaining a positive self-concept or affiliating with other group members. 
Ethical dilemmas, such as the temptation to cheat on taxes, can result when these motives are in conflict. On the one hand, people may be tempted to save money by underreporting their taxable income. On the other hand, no one wants to perceive themselves as a dishonest, free-rider. As a result, people are reluctant to fully exploit unethical opportunities because doing so can severely undermine their self-image as morally upstanding individuals. Instead, people cheat to a much smaller degree than they are capable of: just enough to gain additional resources, but not so much as to compromise their self-image. 
This tendency for marginal dishonesty, or the "fudge factor," is an important principle in social psychology and can be tested through a variety of techniques. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely originally described six separate experiments involving (dis)honesty and a theory of self-concept maintenance.1 The "Adding-to-10 Task" is one of the experimental techniques discussed and is prevalent in research that involves testing honesty. This video demonstrates how to produce and interpret the Adding-to-10 Task.

Source: Julian Wills &#38; Jay Van Bavel&#8212;New York University
Classical economic theory asserts that people are rational and self-interested. In ...

Education

JoVE Science Education

Psychology

Social Psychology

Metacognitive Development: How Children Estimate Their Memory

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
Human memory is fallible, and people often cannot accurately recall what they have seen or heard. Adults are aware of their limited memory capacity, so they use strategies, such as rehearsal and mnemonic devices, to improve their recall of important information. Because adults understand the limits of memory, they know it makes more sense to write down the items on their shopping list rather than to try to remember the items when they get to the store. This ability to think about one&#8217;s own memory is called metamemory. Metamemory is one component of a broader set of cognitive processes that allow humans to think about their own knowledge and thinking, which is called metacognition.
Although young children understand that people have thoughts and a limited amount of knowledge, they often have trouble acknowledging the limits of their own knowledge and cognitive skills. Children&#8217;s ability to accurately estimate their own memory capacity and abilities improves over the elementary school years. One common way of measuring metamemory and its development is by giving children an opportunity to predict how well they can remember something, and then observing how well their prediction matches their actual recall.
This experiment demonstrates how to measure children&#8217;s metamemory based on the methods developed by Shin, Bjorklund, and Beck.1

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
Human memory is fallible, and people often cannot accurately ...

Developmental Psychology

Measuring Children's Trust in Testimony

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
How does a person learn about the world around them? One way is through direct observation and exploration. However, not every piece of information can be observed firsthand. Instead, a person must often rely on other people as information sources. This is particularly true for children who have so many questions about the world around them, yet have limited means of accessing the answers. Thus, children must rely on other people to provide answers to their questions.
There is a popular viewpoint that children are gullible and that they believe everything they hear. However, recent research has shown this is not the case. Children as young as age 3 evaluate what other people say and show selective trust in other people&#8217;s testimony. Children pay attention to and use their knowledge about an individual&#8217;s prior behavior and characteristics to judge whether that individual is a trustworthy informational source. &#160;
This video demonstrates how to measure children&#8217;s trust in testimony based on methods developed by Birch, Vauthier, and Bloom1 and Koenig, Clement, and Harris.2&#160;

Measuring Children&#039;s Trust in Testimony

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
How does a person learn about the world around them? One way ...

Memory Development: Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people and events they encounter in their lives. Thus, creating, storing, and recalling memories are essential elements of the human experience. However, memory, as adults experience it, takes time to develop. Although young children can learn facts and remember details of their lives from moment-to-moment and day-to-day, they do not create autobiographical memories or detailed memories of events that happen in their lives until age 3 or older.
Even after age 3, children&#8217;s memories differ from those of adults in important ways. Children are less effective at evaluating their own memories than adults, which makes it difficult for them to determine, for example, whether or not their memories are accurate. False memories are a problem for both children and adults, as it is quite easy to create a false memory with a poorly-worded question or a story repeated over and over. However, young children are more susceptible to creating false memories than either older children or adults.
This video demonstrates children&#8217;s vulnerability to false memories using a method developed by Steven Ceci and his collaborators.1-2

Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people ...

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Samenvatting

Meer video's verkennen