Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 478–488 | Cite as

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

  • Evelyne Debey
  • Baptist Liefooghe
  • Jan De Houwer
  • Bruno Verschuere
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Switch Cost Task Switching Repetition Trial Switch Trial Cognitive Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Evelyne Debey is supported by Ghent University Grant BOF01D01010. Baptist Liefooghe and Jan De Houwer are supported by Ghent University Grant BOF09/01M00209.

References

  1. Abe, N. (2011). How the brain shapes deception: An integrated review of the literature. Neuroscientist, 17, 560–574. doi: 10.1177/1073858410393359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Ambach, W., Stark, R., & Vaitl, D. (2011). An interfering n-back task facilitates the detection of concealed information with EDA but impedes it with cardiopulmonary physiology. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80, 217–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.03.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbuthnott, K. D. (2008). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(91–100), 1961. doi: 10.1037/1196-.62.2.91.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 128–134. doi: 10.3758/pbr.15.1.128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Cherkasova, M. V., Manoach, D. S., Intriligator, J. M., & Barton, J. J. S. (2002). Antisaccades and task-switching: interactions in controlled processing. Experimental Brain Research, 144, 528–537. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1075-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
  13. Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491–511. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debey, E., De Houwer, J., & Verschuere, B. (2014a). Lying relies on the truth. Cognition, 132, 324–334. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Debey, E., Verschuere, B., & Crombez, G. (2012). Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect. Acta Psychologica, 140, 133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.03.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 486–491. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellefson, M. R., Shapiro, L. R., & Chater, N. (2006). Asymmetrical switch costs in children. Cognitive Development, 21, 108–130. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, A. D., & Lee, K. (2011). Verbal deception from late childhood to middle adolescence and its relation to executive functioning skills. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1108–1116. doi: 10.1037/a0023425.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task-switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0770.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gombos, V. A. (2006). The cognition of deception: The role of executive processes in producing lies. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 197–214. doi: 10.3200/MONO.132.3.197-214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hadar, A. A., Makris, S., & Yarrow, K. (2012). The truth-telling motor cortex: Response competition in M1 discloses deceptive behaviour. Biological Psychology, 89, 495–502. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hernandez, A. E., & Kohnert, K. J. (1999). Aging and language switching in bilinguals. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 6, 69–83. doi: 10.1076/anec.6.2.69.783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.6.1043.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Phillip, A., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi: 10.1037/a0019842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching—a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koch, I., Prinz, W., & Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 69, 252–261. doi: 10.1007/s00426-004-0180-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemaire, P., & Lecacheur, M. (2010). Strategy switch costs in arithmetic problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 38, 322–332. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.3.322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 10.1037/0096-1523.12.4.549.
  32. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1124 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250–264. doi: 10.1007/s004269900005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan, C. J., LeSage, J. B., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Types of deception revealed by individual differences in cognitive abilities. Society for Neuroscience, 4, 554–569. doi: 10.1080/17470910802299987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nachev, P., Wydell, H., O’Neill, K., Husain, M., & Kennard, C. (2007). The role of the pre-supplementary motor area in the control of action. NeuroImage, 36, 155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osman, M., Channon, S., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2009). Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 901–906. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 395–416. doi: 10.1080/09541440600758812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reuter, B., Philipp, A. M., Koch, I., & Kathmann, N. (2006). Effects of switching between leftward and rightward pro- and antisaccades. Biological Psychology, 72, 88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.08.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider, D. W., & Anderson, J. R. (2010). Asymmetric switch costs as sequential difficulty effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1873–1894. doi: 10.1080/17470211003624010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. NeuroReport, 12, 2849–2853. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 280–286. doi: 10.3758/BF03192779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stuss, D. T., & Knight, R. T. (2013). Principles of frontal lobe function. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suchotzki, K., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & De Houwer, J. (2013). Reaction time measures in deception research: comparing the effects of irrelevant and relevant stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 144, 224–231. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarłowski, A., Wodniecka, Z., & Marzecová, A. (2013). Language switching in the production of phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 103–118. doi: 10.1007/s10936-012-9203-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Moens, T., Suchotzki, K., Debey, E., & Spruyt, A. (2012). Learning to lie: Effects of practice on the cognitive cost of lying. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 526. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. doi: 10.1037/a0019791.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Vartanian, O., Kwantes, P. J., Mandel, D. R., Bouak, F., Nakashima, A., Smith, I., et al. (2013). Right inferior frontal gyrus activation as a neural marker of successful lying. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 616. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00616.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2009). Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 647–661. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A., & Chwilla, D. J. (2009). Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event-related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition, 110, 84–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Vermeiren, A., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Switch performance in peripherally- and centrally-triggered saccades. Experimental Brain Research, 206, 243–248. doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2401-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Meijer, E. (2011a). Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verschuere, B., Spruyt, A., Meijer, E. H., & Otgaar, H. (2011b). The ease of lying. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 908–911. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Visu-Petra, G., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2012). RT-based detection of concealed information in relation to individual differences in executive functioning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 342–351. doi: 10.1002/acp.1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Visu-Petra, G., Varga, M., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2013). When interference helps: increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information test. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 146. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.
  65. 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
  66. Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755–774. doi: 10.1002/acp.914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.
  68. Williams, E. J., Bott, L. A., Patrick, J., & Lewis, M. B. (2013). Telling Lies: The irrepressible truth? PLoS ONE, 8, e60713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060713.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003a). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 455–469. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003b). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 919–936. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.919.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelyne Debey
    • 1
  • Baptist Liefooghe
    • 1
  • Jan De Houwer
    • 1
  • Bruno Verschuere
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Psychology and NeuroscienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations