Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dishonest mind set in sequence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dishonest responding is an important part of the behavioral repertoire and perfectly integrated in communication and daily actions. Thus, previous research aimed at uncovering the cognitive mechanisms underlying dishonest responding by studying its immediate behavioral effects. A comprehensive account of the aftereffects of this type of behavior has not been presented to date, however. Based on the methods and theories from research on task switching, we, therefore, explored the notion of honest and dishonest responding as two distinct intentional sets. In four experiments, participants responded either honestly or dishonestly to simple yes/no questions. Crucially, robust switch costs were found between honest and dishonest responding when questions succeeded promptly (Exp. 1) but also when an unrelated task intervened between questions (Exp. 2). Surprisingly, responding dishonestly to a question also affected responses in the subsequent intervening task in terms of a more liberal response criterion. Time to prepare for the upcoming intentional set further induced asymmetrical switch costs (Exp. 3). Finally, a novel control condition (Exp. 4) allowed us to pinpoint most of the observed effects to negation processing as an inherent mechanism of dishonesty. The experiments shed new light on the cognitive mechanisms underlying dishonesty by providing strong support for the concept of distinct mental sets for honest and dishonest responding. The experiments further reveal that these mental sets are notably stable and are not disturbed by intervening task performance. The observed aftereffects of dishonest responding might also provide a potent extension to applied protocols for lie detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The differing frequencies of the questions resulted from a bug in the program. Yet, question frequency did not alter the observed pattern, as indicated by follow-up ANOVAs with the within-subjects factors intention (honest vs. dishonest), intention sequence (repetition vs. switch) and question frequency (rare vs. frequent) on RTs and error rates. Neither the main effect of question frequency nor any interaction of question frequency with the other factors approached significance in these analyses, ps ≥ .108. Equally, Exp. 2 fixed the presentation frequencies and replicated the results of Exp. 1.

  2. Following the suggestions of an anonymous reviewer, we reanalyzed target RTs and error rates in a 2 × 2 ANOVA with the within-subjects factor intention (honest vs. dishonest) and response sequence (repetition vs. switch). The latter factor describes whether the key press response repeated or switched from question to target. Target RTs in Exp. 2 yielded a marginally significant interaction of intention and response sequence for Exp. 2, F(1, 30) = 3.34, p = .078, n 2p  = .10 which suggested a trend toward a more pronounced effect of intention for response switches. The same interaction was not significant for error rates, F < 1. We also did not find any significant interaction of the two factors in Exp. 3 and 4, ps ≥ .107.

  3. Note that lie detection is usually achieved via physiological measures (e.g., Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003; Gamer, Verschuere, Crombez, & Vossel, 2008; van’t Veer, Gallucci, Stel, & van Beest, 2015; Vandenbosch, Verschuere, Crombez, & De Clercq, 2009). Approaches to lie detection via RTs could prove as a fruitful extension to these methods.

References

  • Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00728.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 683–702. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.683.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. doi:10.1177/0146167297237008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the guilty knowledge test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 131–151. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, S., Mbwana, J., Adeyemo, A., Sawyer, A., Hailu, A., & Vanmeter, J. (2009). Lying about facial recognition: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69(2), 382–390. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 472–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. A. (2011a). Arousal. In J. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 247–249). New York, NY: Springer New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. A. (2011b). Yerkes-Dodson Law. In J. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 2737–2738). New York, NY: Springer New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Debey, E., De Houwer, J., & Verschuere, B. (2014a). Lying relies on the truth. Cognition, 132(3), 324–334. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Debey, E., Liefooghe, B., de Houwer, J., & Verschuere, B. (2014b). Lie, truth, lie: The role of task switching in a deception context. Psychological Research,. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0582-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Debey, E., Verschuere, B., & Crombez, G. (2012). Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect. Acta Psychologica, 140(2), 133–141. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.03.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 486–491. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.4.486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, A., Pfister, R., Schmidts, C., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2013). Honesty saves time (and justifications). Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 473. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00473.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Franz, V. H., & von Luxburg, U. (2014). Unconscious lie detection as an example of a widespread fallacy in the Neurosciences. Retrieved January 1, 2015 from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.4240.

  • Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Vossel, G. (2008). Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiology & Behavior, 95(3), 333–340. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Barnhardt, J., & Zhu, J. (2003). The deceptive response: Effects of response conflict and strategic monitoring on the late positive component and episodic memory-related brain activity. Biological Psychology, 64(3), 217–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Barnhardt, J., & Zhu, J. (2004). The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding. Neuropsychologia, 42(7), 878–901. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Barnhardt, J., & Zhu, J. (2005). Differential effects of practice on the executive processes used for truthful and deceptive responses: An event-related brain potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(3), 386–404. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 488–492. doi:10.3758/BF03196511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. doi:10.1177/0261927X14535916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41(3), 211–253. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, R., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63(3–4), 250–264. doi:10.1007/s004269900005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R. (2013). Breaking the rules: Cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Berlin: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., Foerster, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Pants on fire: The electrophysiological signature of telling a lie. Social Neuroscience, 9(6), 562–572. doi:10.1080/17470919.2014.934392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in cognitive psychology/University of Finance and Management in Warsaw, 9(2), 74–80. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., Wirth, R., Schwarz, K. A., Steinhauser, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). Burdens of non-conformity: Motor execution reveals cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Cognition, 147, 93–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serota, K. (2014). Lying, prevalence of. In T. R. Levine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of deception (Vol. 2, pp. 619–621). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781483306902.n233.

  • Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological Science, 23(10), 1264–1270. doi:10.1177/0956797612443835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(13), 2849–2853. doi:10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suchotzki, K., Crombez, G., Smulders, Fren T. Y., Meijer, E., & Verschuere, B. (2015). The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study. International Journal of Psychophysiology,. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.01.010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bockstaele, B., Wilhelm, C., Meijer, E., Debey, E., & Verschuere, B. (2015). When deception becomes easy: The effects of task switching and goal neglect on the truth proportion effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1666. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01666.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbosch, K., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & De Clercq, A. (2009). The validity of finger pulse line length for the detection of concealed information. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(2), 118–123. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.07.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0019791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van’t Veer, A. E., Gallucci, M., Stel, M., & van Beest, I. (2015). Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments—results of a registered report. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11.

  • van’t Veer, A., Stel, M., & van Beest, I. (2013). Limited capacity to lie: cognitive load interferes with being dishonest. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2351377.

  • Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 76–82. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0016-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., & Shalvi, S. (2014). The truth comes naturally! Does it? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 417–423. doi:10.1177/0261927X14535394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Spruyt, A., Meijer, E. H., & Otgaar, H. (2011). The ease of lying. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 908–911. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2008a). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5(1–2), 39–43. doi:10.1002/jip.82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008b). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Griffith, D. A., Yates, R., Visconte, S. R., Simoneaux, B., & Harris, L. L. (2012). Lie detection by inducing cognitive load: Eye movements and other cues to the false answers of “witnesses” to crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(7), 887–909. doi:10.1177/0093854812437014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, D. (2014). A social-cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation-decision-construction-action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22–36. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Mahoney, K. T., Doverspike, D., & Griffith-Ross, D. A. (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 33–49. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(7), 755–774. doi:10.1002/acp.914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M. L., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person-to-person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 141–170. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, R., Pfister, R., Foerster, A., Huestegge, L., & Kunde, W. (2015). Pushing the rules: Effects and aftereffects of non-conformity. Psychological Research, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0690-9

  • Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. doi:10.1002/cne.920180503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455–469. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.455.

    PubMed  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, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology III, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, 97070, Würzburg, Germany

    Anna Foerster, Robert Wirth, Wilfried Kunde & Roland Pfister

Authors
  1. Anna Foerster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Wirth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wilfried Kunde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roland Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Foerster.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    Warst du Joggen?

    Did you go for a run?

  2. 2.

    Bist du eine Treppe herunter gegangen?

    Did you go down a staircase?

  3. 3.

    Bist du eine Treppe hoch gegangen?

    Did you go up a staircase?

  4. 4.

    Hast du getankt?

    Did you buy petrol?

  5. 5.

    Hast du Schokolade gegessen?

    Did you eat chocolate?

  6. 6.

    Bist du Bus gefahren?

    Did you take a bus?

  7. 7.

    Bist du Zug gefahren?

    Did you take a train?

  8. 8.

    Hast du einen Mülleimer benutzt?

    Did you use a dustbin?

  9. 9.

    Hast du ein Bad genommen?

    Did you take a bath?

  10. 10.

    Hast du ein Toast zubereitet?

    Did you make a sandwich?

  11. 11.

    Hast du einen Brief geschrieben?

    Did you post a letter?

  12. 12.

    Hast du eine Tür geschlossen?

    Did you close a door?

  13. 13.

    Warst du duschen?

    Did you take a shower?

  14. 14.

    Hast du eine Zeitung gekauft?

    Did you buy a newspaper?

  15. 15.

    Hast du eine Zeitschrift gekauft?

    Did you buy a magazine?

  16. 16.

    Hast du ein Messer benutzt?

    Did you use a knife?

  17. 17.

    Hast du einen Regenschirm benutzt?

    Did you use an umbrella?

  18. 18.

    Hast du ein Medikament genommen?

    Did you take a pill?

  19. 19.

    Hast du mit einem Polizisten gesprochen?

    Did you speak to a police officer?

  20. 20.

    Hast du einen Apfel gegessen?

    Did you eat an apple?

  21. 21.

    Hast du ein Fenster zerstört?

    Did you break a window?

  22. 22.

    Hast du telefoniert?

    Did you use a telephone?

  23. 23.

    Hast du eine SMS erhalten?

    Did you receive a text?

  24. 24.

    Hast du einen Saft getrunken?

    Did you drink fruit juice?

  25. 25.

    Hast du Radio gehört?

    Did you listen to the radio?

  26. 26.

    Warst du im Internet?

    Did you use the internet?

  27. 27.

    Hast du in einer Schlange angestanden?

    Did you stand in a queue?

  28. 28.

    Hast du in einem Warteraum gesessen?

    Did you sit in a waiting room?

  29. 29.

    Hast du dein Bett gemacht?

    Did you make your bed?

  30. 30.

    Hast du deine Hände gewaschen?

    Did you wash your hands?

  31. 31.

    Hast du ein Dokument unterzeichnet?

    Did you sign a document?

  32. 32.

    Hast du Kaffee getrunken?

    Did you drink coffee?

  33. 33.

    Hast du mit einem Kind gesprochen?

    Did you speak to a child?

  34. 34.

    Hast du Fernsehen geschaut?

    Did you watch television?

  35. 35.

    Hast du Zwiebeln gegessen?

    Did you eat onions?

  36. 36.

    Hast du Wasser getrunken?

    Did you drink water?

  37. 37.

    Hast du an einer Ampel gehalten?

    Did you stop at a traffic light?

  38. 38.

    Warst du im Supermarkt?

    Did you go to a supermarket?

  39. 39.

    Hast du Blumen gekauft?

    Did you buy some flowers?

  40. 40.

    Hast du abgewaschen?

    Did you do the dishes?

  41. 41.

    Bist du Fahrstuhl gefahren?

    Did you take an elevator?

  42. 42.

    Hast du ein Fenster geputzt?

    Did you clean a window?

  43. 43.

    Hast du eine Verabredung verschoben?

    Did you reschedule an appointment?

  44. 44.

    Hast du ein Buch gelesen?

    Did you read a book?

  45. 45.

    Hast du ein Moped abgestellt?

    Did you park a moped?

  46. 46.

    Hast du eine Zitrone ausgepresst?

    Did you squeeze a lemon?

  47. 47.

    Hast du eine Email verschickt?

    Did you send an e-mail?

  48. 48.

    Hast du ein Tier gestreichelt?

    Did you stroke a pet?

  49. 49.

    Hast du einen Mantel getragen?

    Did you wear a coat?

  50. 50.

    Hast du einen Kühlschrank geöffnet?

    Did you open a fridge?

  51. 51.

    Hast du einen Computer eingeschaltet?

    Did you switch on a computer?

  52. 52.

    Hast du eine Zigarette geraucht?

    Did you smoke a cigarette?

  53. 53.

    Hast du auf eine Uhr geschaut?

    Did you look at a watch?

  54. 54.

    Hast du einen Wasserhahn geöffnet?

    Did you open a water tap?

  55. 55.

    Hast du einen Toilettendeckel geöffnet?

    Did you lift a toilet seat?

  56. 56.

    Bist du über einen Zebrastreifen gelaufen?

    Did you use a pedestrian crossing?

  57. 57.

    Hast du einen Geldautomaten benutzt?

    Did you use an ATM?

  58. 58.

    Hast du Geld gewechselt?

    Did you change money?

  59. 59.

    Hast du einen Teppich abgesaugt?

    Did you vacuum a carpet?

  60. 60.

    Hast du Hustensaft getrunken?

    Did you drink cough syrup?

  61. 61.

    Hast du jemanden gegrüßt?

    Did you greet someone?

  62. 62.

    Hast du geputzt?

    Did you clean the house?

  63. 63.

    Hast du in deinen Briefkasten geschaut?

    Did you check your mailbox?

  64. 64.

    Hast du deine Zähne geputzt?

    Did you brush your teeth?

  65. 65.

    Hast du Musik gehört?

    Did you listen to music?

  66. 66.

    Bist du Fahrrad gefahren?

    Did you ride on a bicycle?

  67. 67.

    Hast du auf einer Leiter gestanden?

    Did you stand on a ladder?

  68. 68.

    Hast du auf einem Stuhl gesessen?

    Did you sit on a chair?

  69. 69.

    Hast du ein Stück Papier abgerissen?

    Did you rip a piece of paper?

  70. 70.

    Hast du Blumen gegossen?

    Did you water the plants?

  71. 71.

    Hast du deine Schlüssel benutzt?

    Did you use your keys?

  72. 72.

    Hast du Wasser gekocht?

    Did you boil some water?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foerster, A., Wirth, R., Kunde, W. et al. The dishonest mind set in sequence. Psychological Research 81, 878–899 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0780-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0780-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation