Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics

Tabatabaeian, Maryam; Dale, Rick; Duran, Nicholas D.

doi:10.1007/s10339-015-0660-6

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes contexts where participants are able to choose when to lie. Although this sort of unsanctioned deception is more commonly implemented in experimental paradigms where opportunities to lie occur at discrete points in a structured event sequence [73–76], there have been recent attempts to capture unsanctioned deception in more naturalistic and open social interactions [12, 77–78]. It is here where concerns about reputation and impression management might be most pronounced [79–80], and where our results might find greater support.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Conversing with a devil’s advocate: Interpersonal coordination in deception and disagreement

Duran

Fusaroli

2017

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the presence of dynamical patterns of interpersonal coordination in extended deceptive conversations across multimodal channels of behavior. Using a novel "devil’s advocate" paradigm, we experimentally elicited deception and truth across topics in which conversational partners either agreed or disagreed, and where one partner was surreptitiously asked to argue an opinion opposite of what he or she really believed. We focus on interpersonal coordination as an emergent behavioral signal that captures interdependencies between conversational partners, both as the coupling of head movements over the span of milliseconds, measured via a windowed lagged cross correlation (WLCC) technique, and more global temporal dependencies across speech rate, using cross recurrence quantification analysis (CRQA). Moreover, we considered how interpersonal coordination might be shaped by strategic, adaptive conversational goals associated with deception. We found that deceptive conversations displayed more structured speech rate and higher head movement coordination, the latter with a peak in deceptive disagreement conversations. Together the results allow us to posit an adaptive account, whereby interpersonal coordination is not beholden to any single functional explanation, but can strategically adapt to diverse conversational demands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Conversing with a devil’s advocate: Interpersonal coordination in deception and disagreement

Duran

Fusaroli

2017

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Experiment 1 , we tested how the input device that is used for movement tracking might influence movement trajectories (Moher & Song, 2019 ). Following recent trends, we compared two setups that use a computer mouse to measure continuous movements (e.g., Jusyte et al, 2017 ; Pfister, Wirth, Schwarz, Steinhauser, & Kunde, 2016 ; Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, & Goschke, 2010 ; Tabatabaeian, Dale, & Duran, 2015 ) as well as a setup that takes advantage of the touchscreen of a tablet computer (e.g., Kunde, Schmidts, Wirth, & Herbort, 2017 ; Wirth, Pfister, Foerster, Huestegge, & Kunde, 2016 ).…”

Section: Experiments 1: Manipulation Of Input Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continuous tracking of mouse or finger movements has become an increasingly popular research method for investigating cognitive and motivational processes such as decision-making, action-planning, and executive functions. In the present paper, we evaluate and discuss how apparently trivial design choices of researchers may impact participants’ behavior and, consequently, a study’s results. We first provide a thorough comparison of mouse- and finger-tracking setups on the basis of a Simon task. We then vary a comprehensive set of design factors, including spatial layout, movement extent, time of stimulus onset, size of the target areas, and hit detection in a finger-tracking variant of this task. We explore the impact of these variations on a broad spectrum of movement parameters that are typically used to describe movement trajectories. Based on our findings, we suggest several recommendations for best practice that avoid some of the pitfalls of the methodology. Keeping these recommendations in mind will allow for informed decisions when planning and conducting future tracking experiments.

show abstract

“…A provocative line of research on whether people lie automatically or must decide to lie has also shown that when cheating offers a high probability of personal gain, people may be quicker to produce self-serving lies than truthful responses. In tempting situations, if a self-benefiting lie is easy to craft and little time is allowed for reflection, lying may be the more automatic response, whereas honesty may necessitate more hesitation, deliberation, and executive control ( Shalvi et al, 2012 ; Tabatabaeian et al, 2015 ; see also Bereby-Meyer and Shalvi, 2015 , for a review of supporting literature). When social bonds are made salient, people also produce lies more quickly that benefit their social group than lies that benefit only self ( Shalvi and De Dreu, 2014 ).…”

Section: A Baker’s Dozen Of Moderatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful than Truth-Telling? A Baker’s Dozen of Moderators

Burgoon

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deception is thought to be more effortful than telling the truth. Empirical evidence from many quarters supports this general proposition. However, there are many factors that qualify and even reverse this pattern. Guided by a communication perspective, I present a baker’s dozen of moderators that may alter the degree of cognitive difficulty associated with producing deceptive messages. Among sender-related factors are memory processes, motivation, incentives, and consequences. Lying increases activation of a network of brain regions related to executive memory, suppression of unwanted behaviors, and task switching that is not observed with truth-telling. High motivation coupled with strong incentives or the risk of adverse consequences also prompts more cognitive exertion–for truth-tellers and deceivers alike–to appear credible, with associated effects on performance and message production effort, depending on the magnitude of effort, communicator skill, and experience. Factors related to message and communication context include discourse genre, type of prevarication, expected response length, communication medium, preparation, and recency of target event/issue. These factors can attenuate the degree of cognitive taxation on senders so that truth-telling and deceiving are similarly effortful. Factors related to the interpersonal relationship among interlocutors include whether sender and receiver are cooperative or adversarial and how well-acquainted they are with one another. A final consideration is whether the unit of analysis is the utterance, turn at talk, episode, entire interaction, or series of interactions. Taking these factors into account should produce a more nuanced answer to the question of when deception is more difficult than truth-telling.

show abstract

Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics

Cited by 23 publications

References 30 publications

Conversing with a devil’s advocate: Interpersonal coordination in deception and disagreement

Conversing with a devil’s advocate: Interpersonal coordination in deception and disagreement

Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments

When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful than Truth-Telling? A Baker’s Dozen of Moderators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About