Exploring the decision component of the Activation‐Decision‐Construction‐Action Theory for different reasons to deceive

Abstract

Objectives To explore how reasons to lie impact upon the decision component of Activation‐Decision‐Construction‐Action Theory. Design Specifically, the study looked at how beneficiary of the lie (self vs. another) and additional cost of lying (no cost vs. cost to self/other) might influence decisions to lie. Methods Ninety‐one undergraduate students read four hypothetical scenarios representing the four reasons to lie. They stated whether they would decide to tell the truth/lie for each scenario and also estimated the probability and valence of being believed, or not, if they did decide to tell the truth/lie. These estimations were inputted into the ADCAT formulae. Results Higher expected values of truth‐telling only reduced likelihood to decide to lie when the lie benefitted another. Beneficiary of the lie and additional cost together did not moderate any of the relationships between the ADCAT variables and hypothetical decisions to lie. However, the additional cost (e.g., to self or another) was a significant predictor of anticipated lying behaviour. The more likely there was a cost to self or other, the less likely the participants were to decide to lie. Conclusions Weighing up the expected cost and benefits of truth‐telling and lying was associated with hypothetical decisions to lie or not. However, other variables, such as additional cost to self or another, should be considered in the ADCAT model to extend our understanding of this decision‐making process. Future research is required to investigate whether these relationships can be manipulated to promote honesty and deter deceit.

The Verifiability Approach: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies and a Test of a Decline Effect

“…The latter should generate the idea that the interviewer will be able to check what is being said, leading to less verifiable statements from liars. In addition, increasing the perception of the lie verifiability should increase the cognitive load of the liars, which is helpful for lie detection (Cassidy et al, 2018; and discouraging people from lying.…”

Lying and memory in forensic interviews: The influence of voluntary deception and repeated interviews on memory for the truth

“…Recent empirical tests of propositions made by ADCAT suggest that the decision to lie may be more related to a respondent's motivation and the expected value of telling the truth (Masip, Blandón-Gitlin, de la Riva, & Herrero, 2016), rather than the expected value of being deceptive (cf. Walczyk, Tcholakian, Newman, & Duck, 2016;Cassidy, Wyman, Talwar, & Akehurst, 2019).…”