Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception

Walczyk, Jeffrey J.; Mahoney, Kevin T.; Doverspike, Dennis; Griffith-Ross, Diana A.

doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8

Cited by 83 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the logic of mental chronometry (Donders, 1868(Donders, /1969, reaction times can also provide an index of the speed of performing cognitive operations. When people are instructed to answer questions as fast as possible, they are reliably slower to produce a deceptive answer than to produce a truthful answer (see e.g., Agosta, Pezzoli, & Sartori, 2013;Debey, Verschuere, & Crombez, 2012;Fullam, Mckie, & Dolan, 2009;Gregg, 2007;Sartori, Agosta, Zogmaister, Ferrara, & Castiello, 2008;Spence et al, 2001;Spence, Kaylor-Hughes, Farrow, & Wilkinson, 2008;Suchotzki, Verschuere, Crombez, & De Houwer, 2013;Vendemia, Buzan, & Green, 2005;Verschuere & De Houwer, 2011;Verschuere, Spruyt, Meijer, & Otgaar, 2011;Walczyk, Mahoney, Doverspike, & Griffith-Ross, 2009). People also err more often when giving deceptive responses, thereby revealing the truth.…”

Section: Cognitive Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Truth Comes Naturally! Does It?

Verschuere

Shalvi

2014

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the truth come naturally? And by implication, does this mean that a lie may not come as naturally as the truth? Truth-Default Theory and the Information Manipulation Theory 2 diverge in their opinion on whether people’s natural response is to lie or tell the truth. In line with Truth-Default Theory, cognitive psychology research supports the notion that the truth is the default in human communication. Information Manipulation Theory 2 holds that lying may come as naturally as, or even more naturally than, truth telling, and recent social psychology research supports this possibility. We suggest that motivation may explain the divergence between the two theories and the two lines of research. We raise the hypothesis that truth telling may be the natural response absent clear motivations to lie (hence, most human communication) and that lying may prevail as the automatic reaction when it brings about important self-profit. We hope that this hypothesis will stimulate new research that will allow for bridging the theoretical and empirical findings that seem discrepant at first and show when the truth (vs. the lie) comes naturally.

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Truth Comes Naturally! Does It?

Verschuere

Shalvi

2014

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collectively they discriminated among truth tellers, rehearsed liars, and unrehearsed liars. Moreover, although Walczyk et al (2009) demonstrated the value of adjusted response times and inconsistency totals as discriminators, our research contributes by also considering the effects of rehearsal on eye data. Table 6 reveals an interesting contrast.…”

Section: Pupil Dilationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Still, to ensure its validity, any cognitive-load-inducing lie detector must consider rehearsal to be a likely countermeasure. Walczyk, Mahoney, Doverspike, and Griffith-Ross (2009) found that rehearsal decreased lying response times and inconsistencies compared to unrehearsed lying. More research is needed, however, on the effects of rehearsal on these and other cognitive cues.…”

Section: Rehearsal: An Attenuator Of Cognitive Loadmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Liars are often more inconsistent than truth tellers, likely due to not having generated sufficiently coherent and detailed narratives before lying (Porter & Yuille, 1996;Vrij et al, 2009). We expected rehearsal to reduce inconsistency below that of unrehearsed lying (Walczyk et al, 2009). H3: Truth tellers will move their eyes the most, followed by rehearsed liars; unrehearsed liars will move their eyes the least.…”

Section: H1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were no missing data with this cue. Consistent with Walters (1996) and Walczyk and colleagues (Walczyk et al 2005;Walczyk et al, 2009), truthful base rate means were used to adjust means of cues of questions suspected of deception. Specifically, adjusted Video 1 response times were computed by subtracting the yes-no and open-ended means of general questions from the corresponding means of the Video 1 questions.…”

Section: H1: Response Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

LIE Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load

Walczyk

Griffith

Yates

et al. 2012

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has expanded dramatically in recent years. Most of it concerns the issue of mistaken identification, not the problem of uncovering deceptive accounts of witnesses, which is the focus of this research. In the literature, a technique for lie detection has been proposed that induces cognitive load on liars by averting their rehearsal of deception: Time Restricted Integrity-Confirmation. The current authors tested it by instructing "witnesses" of actual crime videos to lie or tell the truth to related questions. Each of 145 adults was randomly assigned to a truth telling, an unrehearsed lying, or a rehearsed lying condition. The cognitive cues were response time, answer consistency, eye movements, and pupil dilation. Eye data were gathered with an infrared eye tracker. Truth tellers had the quickest response times and the fewest inconsistencies. Moreover, they generally had more eye movements, suggesting low cognitive loads. Discriminant analyses classified rehearsed liars, unrehearsed liars, and truth tellers up to 69% accurately, with few false positives. Further refinement is warranted.

show abstract

Does Practice Make the Perfect Liar? The Effect of Rehearsal and Increased Cognitive Load on Cues to Deception

Gawrylowicz

Fairlamb

Tantot

et al. 2015

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have explored ways to increase cognitive load in liars to identify cues to deception. This study used a driving simulator as a load-inducing technique to explore differences between truth-tellers and liars during an investigative interview scenario and also investigated the effect of rehearsing lies in this context. Deception affected driving performance. Truthtellers drove more slowly compared with their own baseline, whereas unrehearsed liars sped up. There was no difference in speed between truth-tellers and rehearsed liars. In addition, truth-tellers had significantly faster reaction times compared with their own baseline, than both rehearsed and unrehearsed liars. During the interviews, truth-tellers provided significantly more visual and auditory details and mentioned significantly fewer cognitive operations than liars. The findings add to the body of literature exploring the optimal relationship between cognitive load and secondary task performance to identify cues to deception. Copyright

show abstract

Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception

Cited by 83 publications

References 39 publications

The Truth Comes Naturally! Does It?

The Truth Comes Naturally! Does It?

LIE Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load

Does Practice Make the Perfect Liar? The Effect of Rehearsal and Increased Cognitive Load on Cues to Deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About