On the reliability of behavioral measures of cognitive control: retest reliability of task-inhibition effect, task-preparation effect, Stroop-like interference, and conflict adaptation effect

This study examined the reliability (retest and split-half) of four common behavioral measures of cognitive control. In Experiment 1 (N = 96), we examined N – 2 task repetition costs as a marker of task-level inhibition, and the cue-stimulus interval (CSI) effect as a marker of time-based task preparation. In Experiment 2 (N = 48), we examined a Stroop-like face-name interference effect as a measure of distractor interference control, and the sequential congruency effect (“conflict adaptation effect”) as a measure of conflict-triggered adaptation of cognitive control. In both experiments, the measures were assessed in two sessions on the same day, separated by a 10 min-long unrelated filler task. We observed substantial experimental effects with medium to large effect sizes. At the same time, split-half reliabilities were moderate, and retest reliabilities were poor, for most measures, except for the CSI effect. Retest reliability of the Stroop-like effect was improved when considering only trials preceded by congruent trials. Together, the data suggest that these cognitive control measures are well suited for assessing group-level effects of cognitive control. Yet, except for the CSI effect, these measures do not seem suitable for reliably assessing interindividual differences in the strength of cognitive control, and therefore are not suited for correlational approaches. We discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between robustness at the group level and reliability at the level of interindividual differences.

Do serial killer films have a CSI effect?

Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate if inaccurate portrayals in serial killer films create a similar effect to that of the CSI effect in audiences. This is because there is a lot of research showing the CSI effect in TV dramatizations of crime but if there is the same effect in film is virtually unexplored. This is important as it could increase peoples fear of crime and effect how they behave as part of a jury. Method: This study used a qualitative approach as it was underutilised in the previous literature. A questionnaire, which was an adaptation of Saelens, Sallis, Black and Chen (2002), was distributed using social media. This study also had ethical approval. The results were then analysed using thematic analysis. Results: 4 themes were identified: victims, perpetrators, safety and social policy. Conclusion: Findings mostly fit with the hypothesis (film had affected their perceived knowledge, potentially creating a CSI effect), apart from some variation within the data. There was no evidence of the expected affect on fear of crime but the results do still suggest there may be an effect on their behaviour as part of a jury. It is suggested that future studies use a bigger

Jurors' expectations and decision-making: Revisiting the CSI effect

It has been argued that the rise in popularity of crime show dramas over the past few years has led to jurors holding unrealistic expectations regarding the type of evidence presented at trial. This has been coined the CSI effect. We investigated the CSI effect and the less well-known Tech effect-assigning more weight to evidence if obtained through technological means-and the impact of crime severity on juror decision-making. However, we argue that as time progresses, such effects will no longer be found to impact juror decision-making processes. We propose that past effects reported in the literature can be explained by considering a novelty bias. Using both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, we tested this claim. Participants were primed with a newspaper that either contained a forensic, technology, or neutral article. They were then presented with two crime scenarios and asked to provide a verdict and a confidence rating. We find that mock jurors were unaffected by either the priming manipulation or crime severity, finding no evidence for either the CSI or Tech effects. The data suggest jurors are not as easily biased as has been previously argued in the literature, indicating a potential shift in public perceptions and expectations regarding evidence.