Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 33–49 | Cite as

Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception

  • Jeffrey J. Walczyk
  • Kevin T. Mahoney
  • Dennis Doverspike
  • Diana A. Griffith-Ross
Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Implications

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.

Originality/value

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.

Keywords

Cognitive lie detection Cognition Deception Response time Employee selection Applicant screening 

References

  1. Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests of faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 59–72. doi:10.1177/00131640021970367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-processing theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, L. M. (2003). Employee selection. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00074.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (1997). Imaging cognition: An empirical review of PET studies with normal subjects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 1–26. doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 195–202. doi:10.1002/jip.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (CRSEP). (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 703–716. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Harris, C. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–112. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dionisio, D. P., Granholm, E., Hillix, W. A., & Perrine, W. F. (2001). Differentiation of deception using papillary response as an index of cognitive processing. Psychophysiology, 38, 205–211. doi:10.1017/S0048577201990717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, S. L., & Kroeck, K. G. (1989). The impact of drug screening on selection decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(4), 402–411. doi:10.1007/BF01020708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frost, A. G., & Rafilson, F. M. (1989). Overt integrity tests versus personality-based measures of delinquency: An empirical comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(3), 269–277. doi:10.1007/BF01023045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
  24. Gough, H. G. (1971). The assessment of wayward impulse by means of the personnel reaction blank. Personnel Psychology, 24, 669–677. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00380.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guastello, S. J., & Rieke, M. L. (1991). A review and critique of honesty test research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 501–523. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370090412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personnel Selection Series manual. Google Scholar
  29. Hollinger, R., & Davis, J. (2002). National retail security survey final report. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  30. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lipman, M., & McGraw, W. R. (1988). Employee theft: A $40 billion industry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 489, 51–59. doi:10.1177/0002716288498001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 93, 492–527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. London House. (1989). Personnel selection inventory administrator’s manual. Park Ridge, IL: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Luther, N. (2000). Integrity testing and job performance within high performance work teams: A short note. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 19–25. doi:10.1023/A:1007762717488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. McKay, D. G. (1982). The problem of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.5.483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menson, V., Boyett-Anderson, J. M., Schatzberg, A. F., & Reiss, A. L. (2002). Relating episodic and semantic memory systems. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 261–265. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00120-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neumann, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). An empirical examination of overt and covert integrity tests. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 65–79. doi:10.1023/A:1022971016454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ollian, J. (2003). Resume fraud in the corner office: Available at http://www. smeal.psu.edu/news/releases/nov02/resume.html.
  42. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analyses of integrity test validities. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral inhibition and electodermal activity during deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1427–1433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pirolli, P. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of practice in fact retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 136–153. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakeability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(3), 248–256. doi:10.1007/BF01020813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled and automatic processing: Behaviors, theory, & biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge”. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30–37. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Solso, R. L. (2001). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  52. Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F. D., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. NeuroReport, 12, 2849–2853. doi:10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vendemia, J. M. C., Buzan, R. F., & Green, E. P. (2005a). Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception. The American Journal of Psychology, 118, 413–429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Vendemia, J. M. C., Buzan, R. F., & Simon-Dack, S. L. (2005b). Reaction time of motor responses in two-stimulus paradigms involving deception and congruity with varying levels of difficulty. Behavioural Neurology, 16, 25–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Vrij, A., Edward, E., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263. doi:10.1023/A:1006610329284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seeman, 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
  57. Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141–170. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey J. Walczyk
    • 1
  • Kevin T. Mahoney
    • 1
  • Dennis Doverspike
    • 2
  • Diana A. Griffith-Ross
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology & Behavioral SciencesLouisiana Tech UniversityRustonUSA
  2. 2.University of AkronAkronUSA

Personalised recommendations