A Functional MRI Study of Deception Among Offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorders
A Functional MRI Study of Deception Among Offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorders Detection of deception which is commonly referred to as lie detection is one of the hot topics in psychological and legal research. It aims to uncover potential intentional deception in verbal response by an individual. It has been the focus of many debates and much research, both, in psychology as well as the legal profession, however, for all the attention and research this topic has generated over the past decades, there is still a startling lack of conclusive research evidence pointing towards an irrefutable method of detecting deception. Among other aspects, lying involves a cognitive component as well as many physiological changes that accompany it. As such, there are several techniques designed for the detection of deception ranging from verbal techniques to electrophysiological recordings and most recently, neuroimaging techniques. It has been shown that, with the presence of significant errors, machines do only slightly better than mere chance when it comes to detecting lies.
Studies looking at the detection of deception have been common in healthy individuals, with or without a criminal background or convictions, however, studies looking at the same in a population where pathological lying and deceit are central traits are relatively few in number. Thus, for the present assignment, a study titled “A Functional MRI Study of Deception Among Offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorders” by Jiang, Liu, Liao, Ma, Rong, Tang and Wang conducted in 2013 was selected. Individuals with ASPD are frequently implicated in crimes and have a connection with criminal behaviour hence, it seems fitting to conduct a study on lie detection with such a population. The premise of this research as well as the potential implications it may have for law enforcement and police making make it interesting research to review.
Objectives
The study aimed to identify differences in brain activity while lying and when telling the truth among a sample of young adults with an antisocial personality disorder. Instead of only measuring the brain activity while lying or while telling the truth, the researchers measured the contrast of activity between the conditions of truth-telling and lying. Furthermore, it was also hypothesised that as an individual’s capacity to tell a lie increased, the contrast in brain activity measured using blood oxygen level-dependent techniques (BOLD) would decrease.
The objectives delineated by the authors were broadly identified and laid out in the initial section of the paper however, the body of research leading up to the objectives was far from adequate. The authors’ review of literature in the initial section of the paper seemed to lack on several counts. While it was stated that deception studies using patients suffering from ASPD were relatively few in number, it was emphasised that studies had been conducted using healthy controls but sufficient information regarding them was not made available, hence, going into the next section of the paper, the reader would feel quite unversed with the territory. There was a lack of description about the ecological validity considerations of deception studies in general, as well as why the use of the fMRI would make sense over other techniques.
However, the objectives were stated clearly and addressed in the later sections of the paper. The discussion section expanded on the objectives in a very detailed fashion and provided ample context within which they could be placed in the larger field of the study of deception. There was a sharp contrast between the review of the literature and the discussion in terms of the studies included and the latter section contained a great deal of literature which was previously not mentioned. Even a brief introduction to the literature in the first few paragraphs would have allowed the reader to gain a better foothold and grasp the topic in a better way.
Methodology
The methodology which guided the research was sound and well explained at all parts of the paper which made it possible for the reader to follow each part of the procedure. In order to meet the stated objectives, the research would be best suited to adopt a quantitative method as was followed here. The variables under consideration were defined in measurable terms (with the exception of ‘capacity for deception’) and quantified as such. Furthermore, to meet the second objective, that is, to test if the contrast in brain activation (in conditions of lying versus truth-telling) decreases as the capacity for deceit increases, a correlation was done using Pearson product-moment correlation. The results match the objectives stated and the research questions were answered in a clear, specific manner.
The participants were recruited from a school for youth offenders and were selected in accordance with the criteria laid out by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4+) and the Personality Disorder Interview (administered by senior psychiatrists) with strict adherence to protocol. Subjects whose scan data were unsatisfactory were also excluded, giving a final number of 32 participants. The sample size was small which would affect the overall generalisability of the study. The basis for including and excluding participants was transparent and logically followed. Participants were divided into three groups, namely, non-liars, mild liars and severe liars on the basis of their capacity to deceive (which was calculated using Personality Disorder Interview’s deceitfulness criterion). Variables that could account for differences in results were controlled. The participants had no access to drugs or alcohol for a period of 6 months before the scan.
Furthermore, the three groups were matched on demographics, Intelligence Quotient and MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) scores. There were certain areas where the methodology lacked somewhat which are stated below. However, some of these concerns are common to deception research in general.
Ecological validity
Studies on deception detection lack ecological validity in most cases. In the present study, when the subjects were telling a lie, they were doing so in accordance with the instructions of the researchers and it was known to both parties that an untruth would be told. The element of spontaneity which is found in the real world, thus, was missing. Lying in a real-world scenario would be unexpected or unwanted and with a much greater degree of personal interest and desperation.
Another point of interest which was not addressed was the basic meaning of lying for the participants in this study. Lying will likely not translate to the same thing for patients with ASPD in comparison to healthy controls. The inclusion of a healthy control group would have provided greater clarity as well as a baseline. The incentive to deceive. In order to mimic real-world settings, certain studies have offered monetary incentives to lie and this raises the stakes for the participants. Here, there was a basic compensation as well as a bonus however the terms of this bonus were not listed and it was unclear if it created sufficient pressure to perform well.
Capacity for deception
‘Capacity for deception’ was a variable that was included but was not expanded on beyond the use of this term. No parallels were drawn vis-a-vis this capacity in healthy patients and patients with ASPD and no other studies have made explicit use of this criterion were cited.
Neuroscientific method
With regard to the use of a neuroscientific method, the present study used the fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). This section highlights the specific advantages and disadvantages of the fMRI which were relevant to the research.
Advantages of the fMRI
Compared to other imaging techniques, this technique is less invasive and gives greater spatial resolution and therefore a better alternative than CT scans or PET scans. Owing primarily to the great spatial resolution of the fMRI, the main objective of this study was achieved, that is, to identify the brain regions associated with lying and truth-telling in the sample.
Disadvantages of fMRI
The technique puts several restraints on subjects which further affects the study’s ecological validity. The fMRI is highly sensitive to the slightest motion as well. The effect of exposure to powerful magnetic fields is a requisite for this method and research has not delineated a clear picture of how that affects subjects. Additionally, a countermeasure is a technique which may be used to fool these means of lie detection by attempting to skew test results. The more sophisticated the machine, the more sophisticated the countermeasure needs to be in order to be efficient. Though neuroimaging methods seem more effective than the traditional verbal methods or even the polygraph, recent research has found that not even the fMRI is resistant to countermeasures and may suffer a loss in accuracy of 20% due to such techniques. Though the poor temporal resolution is a disadvantage of fMRI, the present study made use of only spatial resolution and temporal resolution was not an issue.
A point to be noted here is that, in line with George Miller’s view, an overly simplistic mapping of brain function to particular areas should best be avoided. The Case for Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Though the fMRI seems like the best option to meet the objectives of the present study in view of its stated objectives, a case can also be made for another BOLD technique known as functional near-infrared spectroscopy. The fNIRS is a technique which, like the fMRI, provides functional imaging of activation of brain regions, but makes use of infrared light for this purpose. It has certain advantages over the fMRI such as better temporal resolution, portability, more tolerance for motion and also, the scope for combination with other techniques such as EEG. However, it also has a lower spatial resolution and depth measurement.
For the present research, perhaps the biggest advantage of the fNIRS would be its portability which would allow a better chance at ecological validity as compared to the fMRI and due to its ability to be combined with other techniques, it would prove a powerful combination along with a polygraph for better lie detection. According to Cui et. al, measurements of the fNIRS and the fMRI are highly correlated which would make it a good substitute. While the fNIRS may prove to be a suitable substitute based on the above-mentioned factors, care would have tone taken to see that the spatial resolution provided by this method allows for the objectives of the study to be met.
In conclusion, this study paper provided a novel outlook by combining two areas of research which have seldom been studied together. They aimed to find which areas in the brain would be associated with telling lies as opposed to truth-telling and it was found that similar brain regions are implicated for these processes in both, patients with ASPD and healthy controls (based on prior studies). Furthermore, as hypothesised, as the capacity to be deceitful increased the contrast in brain activity for telling a lie versus the truth (as measured by fMRI) was seen to decrease. Furthermore, their choice of neuroscientific method, namely, the fMRI, was a robust technique in order to meet the objectives of their study. The study lacks generalisability on account on low ecological validity and small sample size. The study will nonetheless be an important finding for deception research as well as antisocial personality disorder research. In due consideration of the link between ASPD and criminal behaviour, this study has taken the first step to understand how the brain may be implicated in offenders with ASPD. Another major finding highlighted the capacity for deceit in these individuals which may help understand how lying comes easier and more naturally to them on the basis of underlying psychological factors which other studies may look into. In light of the ongoing replication crisis which is concerned with the extent to which published studies may be replicated, it is crucial that studies published in the scientific domain be subjected to a greater degree of scientific rigour. Psychology is implicated to a great extent within this crisis and thus, the scientific rigour and methodology must be largely refined.
References
- Cui, X., Bray, S., Bryant, D. M., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L. (2011). A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks. Neuroimage, 54(4), 2808-2821.
- Hsu, C. W., Begliomini, C., Dall'Acqua, T., & Ganis, G. (2019). The effect of mental countermeasures on neuroimaging-based concealed information tests.
- Human brain mapping, 40(10), 2899-2916.
- Jiang, W., Liu, H., Liao, J., Ma, X., Rong, P., Tang, Y., & Wang, W. (2013). A functional MRI study of deception among offenders with antisocial personality disorders. Neuroscience, 244, 90-98.
- Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design.
- Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 45-54.
- Scarapicchia, V., Brown, C., Mayo, C., & Gawryluk, J. R. (2017). Functional magnetic resonance imaging and functional near-infrared spectroscopy: insights from combined recording studies. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11, 419.
