A Repeated Lie Becomes a Truth? The Effect of Intentional Control and Training on Deception

Hu, Xiaoqing; Chen, Hao; Fu, Guosheng

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00488

Cited by 51 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the same instructions as in our studies, they replicated our findings of practice-related decreases in overall RT with no concomitant reduction in the RT cost of deceptive responses. In a group-design study, Hu et al (2012) investigated the effects of practice on Instructed Lies about a few items of personal semantic information (name, birth date, hometown). Their three groups received either no instructions, instructions to speed their deceptive response, or training in speeding their deceptive responses.…”

Section: Effect Of Practice On Deceptive-related Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment

Johnson

2014

Credibility Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effect Of Practice On Deceptive-related Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment

Johnson

2014

Credibility Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With training in deception, one can fake the reaction-time based test -although doing so is less straightforward than manipulating questionnaire responses. More importantly, research outside doping (Hu, Chen, & Fu, 2012;Takarangi et al, 2013) A doping specific consideration for lie-detection is the complexity of doping, and its effect on the athlete"s doping mindset. The way athletes think about doping, and their cognitive consistency between feeling, thinking and doing (or not doing), has a profound effect on how they answer statements of the direct psychometric scale items and how they perform on response time-and/or physiological response-based tests.…”

Section: Indirect Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A call for policy guidance on psychometric testing in doping control in sport

Petróczi¹,

Backhouse²,

Barkoukis³

et al. 2015

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the fundamental challenges in anti-doping is identifying athletes who use, or are at risk of using, prohibited performance enhancing substances. The growing trend to employ a forensic approach to doping control aims to integrate information from social sciences (e.g., psychology of doping) into organised intelligence to protect clean sport. Beyond the foreseeable consequences of a positive identification as a doping user, this task is further complicated by the discrepancy between what constitutes a doping offence in the World Anti-Doping Code and operationalized in doping research. Whilst psychology plays an important role in developing our understanding of doping behaviour in order to inform intervention and prevention, its contribution to the array of doping diagnostic tools is still in its infancy. In both research and forensic settings, we must acknowledge that (1) socially desirable responding confounds self-reported psychometric test results and (2) that the cognitive complexity surrounding test performance means that the response–time based measures and the lie detector tests for revealing concealed life-events (e.g., doping use) are prone to produce false or non-interpretable outcomes in field settings. Differences in social-cognitive characteristics of doping behaviour that are tested at group level (doping users vs. non-users) cannot be extrapolated to individuals; nor these psychometric measures used for individual diagnostics. In this paper, we present a position statement calling for policy guidance on appropriate use of psychometric assessments in the pursuit of clean sport. We argue that, to date, both self-reported and response-time based psychometric tests for doping have been designed,tested and validated to explore how athletes feel and think about doping in order to develop a better understanding of doping behaviour, not to establish evidence for doping. A false ‘positive’ psychological profile for doping affects not only the individual ‘clean’ athlete but also their entourage, their organisation and sport itself. The proposed policy guidance aims to protect the global athletic community against social, ethical and legal consequences from potential misuse of psychological tests, including erroneous or incompetent applications as forensic diagnostic tools in both practice and research

show abstract

“…2). This may be explained by a habituation effect: Frequent lying makes lying easier and frequent truth telling (like in reality and resembled in our intention condition) makes lying more difficult (Hu et al 2012; Verschuere et al 2011). Also, the preceding questions demanded much more elaborated answers than the relevant question concerning the signature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Catching a Deceiver in the Act: Processes Underlying Deception in an Interactive Interview Setting

Ströfer

Ufkes

Noordzij

et al. 2016

Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lying is known to evoke stress and cognitive load. Both form cues to deception and lead to an increase in sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity. But in reality, deceivers stick to the truth most the time and only lie occasionally. The present study therefore examined in an interactive suspect interview setting, whether deceivers still have clearly diverging cognitive and emotional processes from truth tellers when only having the intention to lie incidentally. We found that deceivers who lied constantly diverge from truth tellers in SNS activity, self-reported cognitive load and stress. Across all interviews, SNS activity correlated stronger with self-reports of cognitive load than stress, which supports the cognitive load approach. Furthermore, deceivers who told the truth and lied on only one crucial question, particularly diverged in self-reported stress from truth-tellers. In terms of SNS activity and self-reported cognitive load, no differences were found. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

A Repeated Lie Becomes a Truth? The Effect of Intentional Control and Training on Deception

Cited by 51 publications

References 35 publications

The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment

The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment

A call for policy guidance on psychometric testing in doping control in sport

Catching a Deceiver in the Act: Processes Underlying Deception in an Interactive Interview Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About