Differential effects of practice on the executive processes used for truthful and deceptive responses: An event-related brain potential study

Johnson, Ray; Barnhardt, Jack; Zhu, John

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.011

Cited by 92 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interesting in this context is our result that the P300 was significantly reduced during lying compared to truth telling (Hu et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2003Johnson et al, , 2005Pfister et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2009). The P300 component has been shown to be influenced by cognitive load, and reduced P300 amplitudes have been observed in paradigms that required the division of attention between different tasks (Isreal et al, 1980a,b;Kramer et al, 1985;Wickens et al, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Although initially attributed to error-detection (e.g., Coles et al, 2001), the discovery of a similar -albeit smaller -negative peak after correct responses challenged this view and led to the proposal that both components serve a more general conflict-monitoring function (Botvinick et al, 2001). Within deception research, it has been found that deceptive compared to truthful responding elicited a stronger CRN (also referred to as Medio-Frontal Negativity), which had been attributed to stronger response-monitoring demands for deceptive responses Johnson et al, 2004Johnson et al, , 2005Johnson et al, 2008;Kireev et al, 2008). Johnson et al (2004;2005) employed an old/new word paradigm, in which participants had to sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly indicate recognition of old words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for lying compared to truth telling, which they interpreted as indication that compared to truth telling, lying comes with increased response conflict and enhanced cognitive load, respectively (see also Johnson et al, 2003Johnson et al, , 2005Wu et al, 2009). In our extra analyses, we examined whether these results replicate in our data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within deception research, it has been found that deceptive compared to truthful responding elicited a stronger CRN (also referred to as Medio-Frontal Negativity), which had been attributed to stronger response-monitoring demands for deceptive responses Johnson et al, 2004Johnson et al, , 2005Johnson et al, 2008;Kireev et al, 2008). Johnson et al (2004;2005) employed an old/new word paradigm, in which participants had to sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly indicate recognition of old words. Johnson et al (2008) instructed participants to lie about their attitudes towards well-known persons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Suchotzki

Crombez

Smulders

et al. 2015

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive view on deception proposes that lying comes with a cognitive cost. This view is supported by the finding that lying typically takes longer than truth telling. Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide a means to unravel the cognitive processes underlying this cost.Using a mock-crime design, the current study (n = 20) investigated the effects of deception on the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), the Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP), the Correct Response Negativity (CRN), and the stimulus-locked N200 and P300 components. In line with previous research, lying resulted in more errors, longer reaction times (RTs) and longer RT standard deviations compared to truthful responses. A marginally significant effect suggested a stronger CNV for the anticipation of lying compared to the anticipation of truth telling. There were no significant deception effects on the stimulus-and the response-locked LRPs. Unexpectedly, we found a significantly larger CRN for truth telling compared to lying.Additional analyses revealed an enhanced N200 and a decreased P300 for lying compared to truth telling. Our results support the cognitive load hypothesis for lying, yet are mixed regarding the response conflict hypothesis. Results are discussed with regard to the specific characteristics of our design and their theoretical and applied implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Suchotzki

Crombez

Smulders

et al. 2015

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, participants in the frequent lying condition made more errors for truth telling than for lying. That this change in the ease of lying was obtained using only 72 filler trials, challenges the argument that the default mode would be unchangeable, as postulated by Johnson and colleagues: "…even after thousands of trials of practice, it is unlikely that the increased difficulty associated with making deceptive responses will be erased entirely (Johnson, Barnhardt, & Zhu, 2005; p. 402)". Admittedly, for response latencies, the effects were less clear cut.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%