Undetected lies of prospective or current employees cost business billions of dollars annually. The ability to detect these lies would be of immense benefit. Several recent reports have called for research on new, theoretically based methods of lie detection. In response, we tested the Activation-Decision-Construction Model of lying (Walczyk, Roper, Seeman, & Humphreys, 2003) according to which response time is a cue to deception. Participants were tested person-to-person. In Experiment 1, half lied to questions probing recent episodic memories. The other half answered honestly. Liar-truth teller response time differences were observed between subjects. Discriminant analyses demonstrated the value of response time for uncovering deceit. Those highest in social skills were the quickest liars. In Experiment 2, lying was shown to take longer than truth telling within subjects, and within-subject response time standard deviations were shown to be converging cues to deception. Based on these data and the ADCM, a Time-Restricted Integrity Confirmation (Tri-Con) framework for lie detection is proposed that might one day provide cost effective lie detection for business. The Costs to Business of Undetected Lies

An account was tested of the development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. According to compensatory-encoding theory, with advancing skill, readers increasingly keep automatic processes from faltering and provide timely, accurate data to working memory by pausing, looking back, rereading, and compensating in other ways when automatic processes fail. Reading skill profiles (e.g., word naming, semantic access, working memory capacity) were obtained from 71 third graders, 68 fifth graders, and 72 seventh graders from a university lab school or a public school (ages 7 to 15; 146 Caucasians, 61 African Americans, 2 Native Americans, 2 Latino Americans). Children participated in an unrestricted reading task (no time or performance pressure) and were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 levels of 3 experimental manipulations of restriction on reading: time pressure or no pressure, constant reading rate or variable reading rate, read silently or read aloud. Regression analyses revealed that developmental level and restriction moderated the reading skill level-comprehension relationship, and restriction lowered comprehension when it overwhelmed skills, especially for younger readers. Verbally inefficient readers compensated most often, and older readers compensated most efficiently.