Literature DB >> 19815796

Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive?

Magda Osman1, Shelley Channon, Sian Fitzpatrick.   

Abstract

Does the truth interfere with our ability to respond deceptively? We considered this question in the present study by examining the effects of a task set (i.e., selecting truthful or untruthful responses), both by comparing two presentations of the same task and through transfer to a different task. All participants carried out the task either under the instructions to respond both correctly and incorrectly (Experiment 1) or under the instructions to respond truthfully and deceptively (Experiment 2); the order of instructions was counterbalanced. In Experiment 2, after completing the main task, the participants also performed a Stroop task. The findings suggested that deceptive responses took longer overall, regardless of the order of instructions. Moreover, the experience of responding deceptively versus truthfully led to faster responding on a subsequent Stroop test. Although there may well be processes unique to deceptive responding, the evidence suggests that overcoming interference is a process shared by deceptive and nondeceptive tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19815796     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  10 in total

1.  Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.

Authors:  U Mayr; R Kliegl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 2.  Cues to deception.

Authors:  Bella M DePaulo; James J Lindsay; Brian E Malone; Laura Muhlenbruck; Kelly Charlton; Harris Cooper
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control.

Authors:  Jennifer Maria Nuñez; B J Casey; Tobias Egner; Todd Hare; Joy Hirsch
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-01-13       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information.

Authors:  Tobias Egner; Joy Hirsch
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2005-11-06       Impact factor: 24.884

5.  Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception.

Authors:  Jennifer M C Vendemia; Robert F Buzan; Eric P Green
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  2005

6.  Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI.

Authors:  Daniel D Langleben; James W Loughead; Warren B Bilker; Kosha Ruparel; Anna Rose Childress; Samantha I Busch; Ruben C Gur
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Accuracy of deception judgments.

Authors:  Charles F Bond; Bella M DePaulo
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2006

8.  Transfer of learning after updating training mediated by the striatum.

Authors:  Erika Dahlin; Anna Stigsdotter Neely; Anne Larsson; Lars Bäckman; Lars Nyberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: evidence from functional neuroimaging.

Authors:  Sean A Spence; Mike D Hunter; Tom F D Farrow; Russell D Green; David H Leung; Catherine J Hughes; Venkatasubramanian Ganesan
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Salience of Guilty Knowledge Test items affects accuracy in realistic mock crimes.

Authors:  Anne Jokinen; Pekka Santtila; Niklas Ravaja; Sampsa Puttonen
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.997

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Lie, truth, lie: the role of task switching in a deception context.

Authors:  Evelyne Debey; Baptist Liefooghe; Jan De Houwer; Bruno Verschuere
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-06-13

2.  Exploring the movement dynamics of deception.

Authors:  Nicholas D Duran; Rick Dale; Christopher T Kello; Chris N H Street; Daniel C Richardson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-03-27

3.  Assessing the impact of previous experience on lie effects through a transfer paradigm.

Authors:  Claudia Mazzuca; Mariagrazia Benassi; Roberto Nicoletti; Giuseppe Sartori; Luisa Lugli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Walczyk; Frank P Igou; Alexa P Dixon; Talar Tcholakian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-02-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.