Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive?

Osman, Magda; Channon, Shelley; Fitzpatrick, Sian

doi:10.3758/pbr.16.5.901

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because deception is typically chosen only when honesty blocks goal attainment, truth telling is usually more practiced and automatic (129). Especially for well-rehearsed truths, conveying corresponding deceptions can impose a cognitive load during delivery, requiring active suppression of the truth (100, 116, 136, 137). In addition to this source of cognitive load, lies told in high-stakes situations are highly motivated, which can heighten the fear of being caught as well as the cognitive load of delivery (138).…”

Section: Activation-decision-construction-action Theory (Adcat)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Approaches to Detecting Malingering in Forensic Contexts and Promising Cognitive Load-Inducing Lie Detection Techniques

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malingering, the feigning of psychological or physical ailment for gain, imposes high costs on society, especially on the criminal-justice system. In this article, we review some of the costs of malingering in forensic contexts. Then the most common methods of malingering detection are reviewed, including those for feigned psychiatric and cognitive impairments. The shortcomings of each are considered. The article continues with a discussion of commonly used means for detecting deception. Although not traditionally used to uncover malingering, new, innovative methods are emphasized that attempt to induce greater cognitive load on liars than truth tellers, some informed by theoretical accounts of deception. As a type of deception, we argue that such cognitive approaches and theoretical understanding can be adapted to the detection of malingering to supplement existing methods.

show abstract

Section: Activation-decision-construction-action Theory (Adcat)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Approaches to Detecting Malingering in Forensic Contexts and Promising Cognitive Load-Inducing Lie Detection Techniques

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this model focuses on lies of omission, it has relevance to deception generally. Since most lying involves keeping a secret by withholding some truth, it may help explain the fact that an allocation of cognitive resources is often required to inhibit responding truthfully (Pennebaker and Chew, 1985; Johnson et al, 2004; Kozel et al, 2004; Osman et al, 2009), just as it occurs in thought suppression. Expanding this account, for instance, by integrating it with the PTS model, should increase understanding of when lying requires cognitive resources to inhibit the truth and thereby help pinpoint when cognitive load indices make the most reliable cues to deception.…”

Section: Models/theories Advancing Understanding Of the Cognition Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Lie Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load on Liars: A Review of Relevant Theories and Techniques Guided by Lessons from Polygraph-Based Approaches

Walczyk¹,

Igou²,

Dixon³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically reviews techniques and theories relevant to the emerging field of “lie detection by inducing cognitive load selectively on liars.” To help these techniques benefit from past mistakes, we start with a summary of the polygraph-based Controlled Question Technique (CQT) and the major criticisms of it made by the National Research Council (2003), including that it not based on a validated theory and administration procedures have not been standardized. Lessons from the more successful Guilty Knowledge Test are also considered. The critical review that follows starts with the presentation of models and theories offering insights for cognitive lie detection that can undergird theoretically load-inducing approaches. This is followed by evaluation of specific research-based, load-inducing proposals, especially for their susceptibility to rehearsal and other countermeasures. To help organize these proposals and suggest new direction for innovation and refinement, a theoretical taxonomy is presented based on the type of cognitive load induced in examinees (intrinsic or extraneous) and how open-ended the responses to test items are. Finally, four recommendations are proffered that can help researchers and practitioners to avert the corresponding mistakes with the CQT and yield new, valid cognitive lie detection technologies.

show abstract

“…The truth also seems to be spontaneously activated with a lie, requiring additional effort to overcome (Osman et al, 2009; Duran et al, 2010). It is thought that performing concurrent tasks with deception, such as controlling one's body movements, will leave fewer resources available for successful deceptive performances (Leal et al, 2008).…”

Section: Unraveling the Dynamics Of Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the movement dynamics of deception

Duran¹,

Dale²,

Kello³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both the science and the everyday practice of detecting a lie rest on the same assumption: hidden cognitive states that the liar would like to remain hidden nevertheless influence observable behavior. This assumption has good evidence. The insights of professional interrogators, anecdotal evidence, and body language textbooks have all built up a sizeable catalog of non-verbal cues that have been claimed to distinguish deceptive and truthful behavior. Typically, these cues are discrete, individual behaviors—a hand touching a mouth, the rise of a brow—that distinguish lies from truths solely in terms of their frequency or duration. Research to date has failed to establish any of these non-verbal cues as a reliable marker of deception. Here we argue that perhaps this is because simple tallies of behavior can miss out on the rich but subtle organization of behavior as it unfolds over time. Research in cognitive science from a dynamical systems perspective has shown that behavior is structured across multiple timescales, with more or less regularity and structure. Using tools that are sensitive to these dynamics, we analyzed body motion data from an experiment that put participants in a realistic situation of choosing, or not, to lie to an experimenter. Our analyses indicate that when being deceptive, continuous fluctuations of movement in the upper face, and somewhat in the arms, are characterized by dynamical properties of less stability, but greater complexity. For the upper face, these distinctions are present despite no apparent differences in the overall amount of movement between deception and truth. We suggest that these unique dynamical signatures of motion are indicative of both the cognitive demands inherent to deception and the need to respond adaptively in a social context.

show abstract

Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive?

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

A Review of Approaches to Detecting Malingering in Forensic Contexts and Promising Cognitive Load-Inducing Lie Detection Techniques

A Review of Approaches to Detecting Malingering in Forensic Contexts and Promising Cognitive Load-Inducing Lie Detection Techniques

Advancing Lie Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load on Liars: A Review of Relevant Theories and Techniques Guided by Lessons from Polygraph-Based Approaches

Exploring the movement dynamics of deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About