Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception
- 1.1k Downloads
The purpose of this study was to test a new cognitive lie detection method, time restricted integrity confirmation (Tri-Con), which uses response time and inconsistencies across answers as cues to deception.
Data were obtained from two samples of students enrolled in psychology classes (n = 96 for Experiment 1, n = 99 for Experiment 2). The experimental task required students to lie or tell the truth to questions probing biodata under time restriction. The foci of questions (such as Academics or Employment History) were chosen because of their relevance to participants’ lives.
Tri-Con was able to distinguish between truth tellers and liars after controlling for individual differences. In one experiment, liar-truth teller classification accuracies reached 89%. Mean response times and answer consistency can be used to distinguish those who lie from those who tell the truth.
Research on cognitive-based lie detectors, such as Tri-Con, hold the potential for developing reliable and valid methods of screening out employees likely to engage in misconduct and providing deceptive answers to screening questions. A cognitive lie detector would constitute a paradigm shift away from the polygraph, and could be used in tandem with integrity tests.
This study was a preliminary test of a cognitive lie detection method based on a model of cognitive events (the Activation-Decision-Construction model) when people answer questions deceptively. It constitutes a step in translating laboratory-based cognitive research into applied technologies for the real world detection of lying, including lying that occurs during pre-employment screening.
KeywordsCognitive lie detection Cognition Deception Response time Employee selection Applicant screening
- Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Baker, L., Stern, J. A., & Goldstein, R. (1990). The gaze control system and the detection of deception. (Rep. No. 90-F131400). Fort Jackson, South Carolina: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.Google Scholar
- Berry, L. M. (2003). Employee selection. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (CRSEP). (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Conway, M. A. (2002). Sensory-perceptual episodic memory and its context. In A. Baddeley & J. P. Aggleton (Eds.), Episodic memory: New directions in research (pp. 53–70). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Heilveil, I. (1976). Deception and pupil size. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 443–449. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197607)32:3<675::AID-JCLP2270320340>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personnel Selection Series manual. Google Scholar
- Hollinger, R., & Davis, J. (2002). National retail security survey final report. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.Google Scholar
- Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Locker, L., & Pratarelli, M. C. (1997). Lexical decision and the detection of concealed information. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, 33–43.Google Scholar
- London House. (1989). Personnel selection inventory administrator’s manual. Park Ridge, IL: Author.Google Scholar
- Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Malone, B. E., Adams, R. B., Anderson, D. E., Ansfield, M. E., & DePaulo, B. M. (1997). Strategies of deception and their correlates over the course of friendship. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Society: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Ollian, J. (2003). Resume fraud in the corner office: Available at http://www. smeal.psu.edu/news/releases/nov02/resume.html.
- Paajanen, G. E. (1986). Development and validation of the PDI Employment Inventory Presented at the 94th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Rosenfeld, J. P. (2002). Event-related potentials in the detection of deception, malingering, and false memories. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 265–286). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Solso, R. L. (2001). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar