CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Deception detection and forensic psychologyMemory Processes and InfluencesMisinformation and Its Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A reverse order interview does not aid deception detection regarding intentions

Open access
Fenn, Elise, McGuire, Mollie, Langben, Sara, Blandón-Gitlin, Iris·2015·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01298PMC PMC4553365
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Promising recent research suggests that more cognitively demanding interviews improve deception detection accuracy. Would these cognitively demanding techniques work in the same way when discriminating between true and false future intentions? In Experiment 1 participants planned to complete a task, but instead were intercepted and interviewed about their intentions. Participants lied or told the truth, and were subjected to high (reverse order) or low (sequential order) cognitive load interviews. Third-party observers watched these interviews and indicated whether they thought the person was lying or telling the truth. Subjecting participants to a reverse compared to sequential interview increased the misidentification rate and the appearance of cognitive load in truth tellers. People lying about false intentions were not better identified. In Experiment 2, a second set of third-party observers rated behavioral cues. Consistent with Experiment 1, truth tellers, but not liars, exhibited more behaviors associated with lying and fewer behaviors associated with truth telling in the reverse than sequential interview. Together these results suggest that certain cognitively demanding interviews may be less useful when interviewing to detect false intentions. Explaining a true intention while under higher cognitive demand places truth tellers at risk of being misclassified. There may be such a thing as too much cognitive load induced by certain techniques.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01298

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Abe, 2006, Dissociable roles of prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices in deception., Cereb. Cortex, 16, 192, 10.1093/cercor/bhi097 · DOI
  2. Blair, 2010, Content in context improves deception detection accuracy., Hum. Commun. Res., 36, 423, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01382.x · DOI
  3. Blandón-Gitlin, 2014, Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: searching for cognitive mechanisms., Trends Cogn. Sci., 18, 441, 10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.004 · DOI
  4. Bond, 2006, Accuracy of deception judgments., Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 10, 214, 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Buhrmester, 2011, Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 6, 3, 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Christ, 2009, The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate Meta-Analyses., Cereb. Cortex, 19, 1557, 10.1093/cercor/bhn189 · DOI
  7. Clemens, 2011, Eliciting cues to false intent: a new application of strategic interviewing., Law Hum. Behav., 35, 512, 10.1007/s10979-010-9258-9 · DOI
  8. D’Argembeau, 2010, Component processes underlying future thinking., Mem. Cogn., 38, 809, 10.3758/MC.38.6.809 · DOI
  9. Debey, 2012, Lying and executive control: an experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect., Acta Psychol., 140, 133, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.03.004 · DOI
  10. de Vito, 2012, Future thinking in Parkinson’s disease: an executive function?, Neuropsychologia, 50, 1494, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.001 · DOI
  11. Evans, 2013, Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool., J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn., 2, 33, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002 · DOI
  12. Gombos, 2006, The cognition of deception: the role of executive processes in producing lies., Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr., 132, 197, 10.3200/mono.132.3.197-214 · DOI
  13. Gamboz, 2010, The role of past in the simulation of autobiographical future episodes., Exp. Psychol., 57, 419, 10.1027/1618-3169/a000052 · DOI
  14. Gamer, 2007, Covariations among fMRI, skin conductance, and behavioral data during processing of concealed information., Hum. Brain Mapp., 28, 1287, 10.1002/hbm.20343 · DOI
  15. Granhag, 2010, On the psycho-legal study of true and false intentions: dangerous waters and some stepping stones., Open Criminol. J., 3, 37, 10.2174/1874917801003020037 · DOI
  16. Granhag, 2011, Episodic future thought: illuminating the trademarks of forming true and false intentions., Appl. Cogn. Psychol., 25, 274, 10.1002/acp.1674 · DOI
  17. Granhag, 2014, Preventing future crimes identifying markers of true and false intent., Eur. Psychol., 19, 195, 10.1027/1016-9040/a000202 · DOI
  18. Hartwig, 2011, Why do lie-catchers fail? a lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments., Psychol. Bull., 137, 643, 10.1037/a0023589 · DOI
  19. Hartwig, 2006, Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: when training to detect deception works., Law Hum. Behav., 30, 603, 10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hauch, 2014, Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception., Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 10.1177/1088868314556539 · DOI
  21. Hill, 2013, Episodic future thought: contributions from working memory., Conscious. Cogn., 22, 677, 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.002 · DOI
  22. Hu, 2013, An interfering dot-probe task facilitates the detection of mock crime memory in a reaction time (RT)-based concealed information test., Acta Psychol., 142, 278, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.12.006 · DOI
  23. Knieps, 2013, Back to the future: asking about mental images to discriminate between true and false intentions., J. Psychol., 147, 619, 10.1080/00223980.2012.728542 · DOI
  24. Leal, 2010, Detecting true and false opinions: the devil’s advocate approach as a lie detection aid., Acta Psychol., 134, 323, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.005 · DOI
  25. Mac Giolla, 2014, Detecting false intent amongst small cells of suspects: single versus repeated interviews., J. Investigat. Psychol. Off. Prof., 12, 142, 10.1002/jip.1419 · DOI
  26. Mac Giolla, 2015, “Discriminating between true and false intentions,” in, Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches, 155
  27. Masip, 2009, Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias., Psychol. Rep., 105, 11, 10.2466/pr0.105.1.11-36 · DOI
  28. McCornack, 1997, “The generation of deceptive messages: laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception,” in, Message Production: Advances of Communication Theory, 91
  29. McCornack, 2014, Information manipulation theory 2: a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production., J. Lang. Soc. Psychol., 33, 348, 10.1177/0261927x14534656 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sooniste, 2013, True and false intentions: asking about the past to detect lies about the future., Psychol. Crime Law, 19, 673, 10.1080/1068316X.2013.793333 · DOI
  31. Sooniste, 2014, Discriminating between true and false intent among small cells of suspects., Legal. Criminol. Psychol., 10.1111/lcrp.12063 · DOI
  32. Stanislaw, 1999, Calculation of signal detection theory measures., Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput., 31, 137, 10.3758/BF03207704 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Street, 2015, The source of the truth bias: heuristic processing?, Scand. J. Psychol., 56, 254, 10.1111/sjop.12204 · DOI
  34. Suchotzki, 2015, The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: an event-related potential study., Int. J. Psychophysiol., 95, 395, 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.01.010 · DOI
  35. Tabachnick, 2012, Using Multivariate Statistics
  36. Visu-Petra, 2013, When interference helps: increasing executive load to facilitqate deception detection in the concealed information test., Front. Psychol., 4, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146 · DOI
  37. Vrij, 2011a, Outsmarting the liars: toward a cognitive lie detection approach., Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 20, 28, 10.1177/0963721410391245 · DOI
  38. Vrij, 2011b, A comparison between lying about intentions and past activities: verbal cues and detection accuracy., Appl. Cogn. Psychol., 25, 212, 10.1002/acp.1665 · DOI
  39. Vrij, 2009, Outsmarting the liars: the benefit of asking unanticipated questions., Law Hum. Behav., 33, 159, 10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y · DOI
  40. Vrij, 2008, Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the benefit of recalling an event in reverse order., Law Hum. Behav., 32, 253, 10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y · DOI
  41. Walczyk, 2013, Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches., Front. Psychol., 4, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014 · DOI
  42. Walczyk, 2009, Cognitive lie detection: response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception., J. Bus. Psychol., 24, 33, 10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8 · DOI
  43. Walczyk, 2005, Lying person to person about life events: a cognitive framework for lie detection., Pers. Psychol., 58, 141, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x · DOI
  44. Warmelink, 2012, The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions., Acta Psychol., 141, 178, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.011 · DOI
  45. Warmelink, 2011, Thermal imaging as a lie detection tool at airports., Law Hum. Behav., 35, 40, 10.1007/s10979-010-9251-3 · DOI
  46. Williams, 2013, Telling lies: the irrepressible truth?, PLoS ONE, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0060713 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 25

Metadata

Authors
Fenn, E., McGuire, M., Langben, S., & Blandón-Gitlin, I.
Affiliations
  • Claremont Graduate University (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Fenn, Elise
ORCID
McGuire, Mollie
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-08-31
Volume
6
Pages
1298-1298
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01298
PMC
PMC4553365
OpenAlex
W1808923764
Cited by
25
References
4
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
deception detection, cognitive load, future intentions, behavioral cues, third-party observers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review