Deception research today

Gamer, Matthias; Ambach, Wolfgang

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00256

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The idea is consistent with findings that reasoning serves the social function to persuade others (Mercier & Sperber, 2011). Secondly, these findings also contribute to the field of deception by helping to identify the processes that underlie it (Gamer & Ambach, 2014). Our current findings suggest that counterfactual thinking is one of those mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Undoing the past in order to lie in the present: Counterfactual thinking and deceptive communication

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the proposal that there is a close link between counterfactual thinking and lying. Both require the imagination of alternatives to reality and we describe four studies which explore this link. In Study 1 we measured individual differences in both abilities and found that individuals with a tendency to generate counterfactual thoughts were also more likely to generate potential lies. Studies 2 and 3 showed that counterfactual availability influences people's ability to come up with lies and the extent to which they expect others to lie. Study 4 used a behavioural measure of deception to show that people tend to lie more in situations also known to elicit counterfactual thoughts. Overall, the results show that the imagination of alternatives to the past plays an important role in the generation of lies. We discuss the implications for the fields of counterfactual thinking and deception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Undoing the past in order to lie in the present: Counterfactual thinking and deceptive communication

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, finding reliable indicators of deception would be an invaluable tool for law enforcement (Volbert & Steller, 2014). A lively tradition of research into lie detection is testament to this endeavor (Gamer & Ambach, 2014;Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of deception: Event‐related potential markers of attention and cognitive control during intentional false responses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful deception requires the coordination of multiple mental processes, such as attention, conflict monitoring, and the regulation of emotion. We employed a simple classification task, assessing ERPs to further investigate the attentional and cognitive control components of (instructed) deception. In Experiment 1, 20 participants repeatedly categorized visually presented names of five animals and five plants. Prior to the experiment, however, each participant covertly selected one animal and one plant for deliberate misclassification. For these critical items, we observed significantly increased response times (RTs), error rates, and amplitudes of three ERP components: anterior P3a indicating the processing of task relevance, medial-frontal negativity reflecting conflict monitoring, and posterior P3b indicating sustained visual attention. In a blind identification of the individual critical words based on a priori defined criteria, an algorithm using two behavioral and two ERP measures combined showed a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.95, thus performing far above chance (0.2/0.2). Experiment 2 used five clothing and five furniture names and successfully replicated the findings of Experiment 1 in 25 new participants. For detection of the critical words, the algorithm from Experiment 1 was reused with only slight adjustments of the ERP time windows. This resulted in a very high detection performance (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.94) and significantly outperformed an algorithm based on RT alone. Thus, at least under controlled laboratory conditions, a highly accurate detection of instructed lies via the attentional and cognitive control components is feasible, and benefits strongly from combined behavioral and ERP measures.

show abstract

“…An ideal candidate for such an approach is the Concealed Information Test (CIT, previously known as the Guilty Knowledge Test) introduced by Lykken [ 27 , 28 ] as a psychophysiological test revealing “memory traces” [ 29 ] of the information that the subject is trying to conceal. Although integrated in the deception detection literature, the CIT does not aim to identify deception per se, but rather investigates the possession of information that the participant is not willing to disclose [ 30 ]. Recently, behavioral measures (reaction times) were introduced in this paradigm [ 31 ], resulting in the now known RT-CIT [ 32 , 33 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” Effect in the RT-Based Concealed Information Test: Exploring the Effect of Emotional Expressions Displayed by a Virtual Investigator

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concealing the possession of relevant information represents a complex cognitive process, shaped by contextual demands and individual differences in cognitive and socio-emotional functioning. The Reaction Time-based Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) is used to detect concealed knowledge based on the difference in RTs between denying recognition of critical (probes) and newly encountered (irrelevant) information. Several research questions were addressed in this scenario implemented after a mock crime. First, we were interested whether the introduction of a social stimulus (facial identity) simulating a virtual investigator would facilitate the process of deception detection. Next, we explored whether his emotional displays (friendly, hostile or neutral) would have a differential impact on speed of responses to probe versus irrelevant items. We also compared the impact of introducing similar stimuli in a working memory (WM) updating context without requirements to conceal information. Finally, we explored the association between deceptive behavior and individual differences in WM updating proficiency or in internalizing problems (state / trait anxiety and depression). Results indicated that the mere presence of a neutral virtual investigator slowed down participants' responses, but not the appended lie-specific time (difference between probes and irrelevants). Emotional expression was shown to differentially affect speed of responses to critical items, with positive displays from the virtual examiner enhancing lie-specific time, compared to negative facial expressions, which had an opposite impact. This valence-specific effect was not visible in the WM updating context. Higher levels of trait / state anxiety were related to faster responses to probes in the negative condition (hostile facial expression) of the RT-CIT. These preliminary findings further emphasize the need to take into account motivational and emotional factors when considering the transfer of deception detection techniques from the laboratory to real-life settings.

show abstract

Deception research today

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Undoing the past in order to lie in the present: Counterfactual thinking and deceptive communication

Undoing the past in order to lie in the present: Counterfactual thinking and deceptive communication

Detection of deception: Event‐related potential markers of attention and cognitive control during intentional false responses

The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” Effect in the RT-Based Concealed Information Test: Exploring the Effect of Emotional Expressions Displayed by a Virtual Investigator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About