Lie, truth, lie: the role of task switching in a deception context
- 669 Downloads
A cornerstone of the task switching literature is the finding that task performance is typically slower and more error-prone when the task switches than when it repeats. So far, deception research has largely ignored that such cognitive switch costs should also emerge when switching between truth telling and lying, and may affect the cognitive cost of lying as reflected in higher prefrontal brain activity and slower and less accurate responding compared to truth telling. To get a grasp on the relative size of the switch costs associated with lying and truth telling, the current study had participants perform a reaction time-based deception task, in which they alternated between lying and telling the truth to yes/no questions that were related to activities performed in the lab (Experiment 1) or neutral autobiographical facts (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the error and reaction time switch costs were found to be equally large for switching from truth telling to lying and from lying to truth telling. This symmetry in switch costs can be explained from the hypothesis that lying requires a first step of truth telling, and demonstrates that task switching does not contribute to the cognitive cost of lying when the repetition/switch ratio is balanced. Theoretical and methodological implications are considered.
KeywordsSwitch Cost Task Switching Repetition Trial Switch Trial Cognitive Cost
Evelyne Debey is supported by Ghent University Grant BOF01D01010. Baptist Liefooghe and Jan De Houwer are supported by Ghent University Grant BOF09/01M00209.
- Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting attentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltá & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus–response bindings and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 36–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Ben-Shakhar, G. (2001). A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT). In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 103–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J. I. D. (2005). Asymmetrical language switching costs in Chinese-English bilinguals’ number naming and simple arithmetic. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 85–91. doi: 10.1017/S136672890400207X.
- Christ, S. E., Van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E., & McDermott, K. B. (2009). The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: Evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1557–1566. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn189.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
- Debey, E., Ridderinkhof, K. R., De Houwer, J., & Verschuere, B. (2014b). Suppressing the truth as a mechanism of deception: Delta plots reveal the role of response inhibition in lying (submitted).Google Scholar
- Hübner, M., Kluwe, R. H., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Peters, A. (2004). Response selection difficulty and asymmetrical costs of switching between tasks and stimuli: No evidence for an exogenous component of task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1043–1063. doi: 10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.1683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Logan, G. D., & Burkell, J. (1986). Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: a comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 549–563. doi: 10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.1249.
- Manoach, D. S., Thakkar, K. N., Cain, M. S., Polli, F. E., Edelman, J. A., Fischl, B., et al. (2007). Neural activity is modulated by trial history: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the effects of a previous antisaccade. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 1791–1798. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3662-06.2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention & Performance (Vol. XIX, pp. 494–519). Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 119–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004.
- Walczyk, J. J., Igou, F. P., Dixon, A. P., & Tcholakian, T. (2013). Advancing lie detection by including cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Williams, E. J. (2012). Lies and Cognition: How do we tell lies and can we detect them? (Doctoral thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK). http://orca.cf.ac.uk/40319/1/2012williamsephd.pdf.