Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load

Vrij, Aldert; Fisher, Ronald P.; Mann, Samantha; Leal, Sharon

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.003

Cited by 246 publications

(215 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

198

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We searched scientific databases (Web of Science and Google Scholar) using the following combinations of keywords: ["lying task" OR lying OR CIT OR "Concealed Information Test" OR "Sheffield Lie test" OR "autobiographical Implicit Association Test" OR "aIAT"] 1 The terminology in this field has been confusing, because "cognitive load" (Vrij et al, 2006) may refer to both the specific technique of imposing cognitive load as well as to the general cognitive theory of lying. The cognitive theory holds that lying is typically more effortful than truth telling.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying.

Verschuere¹,

Köbis²,

Bereby‐Meyer

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lying typically requires greater mental effort than telling the truth. Imposing cognitive load may improve lie detection by limiting the cognitive resources needed to lie effectively, thereby increasing the difference in speed between truths and lies. We test this hypothesis meta-analytically. Across 21 studies using response-time (RT) paradigms (11 unpublished; total N = 792), we consistently found that truth-telling was faster than lying, but found no evidence that imposing cognitive load increased that difference (Control, d = 1.45; Load, d = 1.28). Instead, load significantly decreased the lie-truth RT difference by increasing the RT of truths, g = −.18, p = .027. Our findings therefore suggest that imposing cognitive load does not necessarily improve RT-based lie detection, and may actually worsen it by taxing the mental system and thus impeding people's ability to easily-and thus quickly-tell the truth.

show abstract

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying.

Verschuere¹,

Köbis²,

Bereby‐Meyer

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, the robustness and specificity of the link between deception and arousal have been criticized (Lykken, 1998;National Research Council, 2003;Vrij et al, 2006;Vrij et al, 2011). Therefore, in the last decade, there has been renewed interest in a cognitive approach to deception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, in the last decade, there has been renewed interest in a cognitive approach to deception. The central idea is that lying is cognitively more demanding than truth telling (DePaulo et al, 2003;Vrij et al, 2006;Zuckerman et al, 1981). More specifically, it has been reasoned that the formulation of a credible lie requires that the truth is kept active in working memory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Suchotzki

Crombez

Smulders

et al. 2015

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive view on deception proposes that lying comes with a cognitive cost. This view is supported by the finding that lying typically takes longer than truth telling. Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide a means to unravel the cognitive processes underlying this cost.Using a mock-crime design, the current study (n = 20) investigated the effects of deception on the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), the Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP), the Correct Response Negativity (CRN), and the stimulus-locked N200 and P300 components. In line with previous research, lying resulted in more errors, longer reaction times (RTs) and longer RT standard deviations compared to truthful responses. A marginally significant effect suggested a stronger CNV for the anticipation of lying compared to the anticipation of truth telling. There were no significant deception effects on the stimulus-and the response-locked LRPs. Unexpectedly, we found a significantly larger CRN for truth telling compared to lying.Additional analyses revealed an enhanced N200 and a decreased P300 for lying compared to truth telling. Our results support the cognitive load hypothesis for lying, yet are mixed regarding the response conflict hypothesis. Results are discussed with regard to the specific characteristics of our design and their theoretical and applied implications.

show abstract

“…Although the theory of cognitive load has only received wide attention recently (Vrij, Fisher, Mann, & Leal, 2006), researchers have begun to test multiple techniques designed to increase cognitive load. Walczyk, Schwartz, Clifton, Adams, Wei, & Zha (2005) suggest asking a suspect close-ended questions under time pressure.…”

Section: Using Psychological Research To Inform Interrogational Practmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Deception Detection to True and False Confessions: A Novel Approach to Conducting Experiments in Legal Psychology

Preston¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load

Cited by 246 publications

References 4 publications

Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying.

Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying.

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Applying Deception Detection to True and False Confessions: A Novel Approach to Conducting Experiments in Legal Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About