Individual differences in ERPs during deception: Observing vs. demonstrating behavior leading to a small social conflict

Scheuble, Vera; Beauducel, André

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107830

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 220 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, it may be possible to increase a participant's attention to a crime-related stimulus to enhance the detection efficiency of P300 (e.g., Rosenfeld, Hu, & Pederson, 2012;and recently Olson, Rosenfeld, & Perrault, 2019). Furthermore, it may be possible to identify and utilize other ERPs that are independent of P300, such as N200 (which is thought to be associated with response monitoring processes) (Gamer & Berti, 2010;Hu, Pornpattananangkul, & Rosenfeld, 2013), or Medial Frontal Negativity, to increase the efficiency of the CIT (Scheuble & Beauducel, 2020). Sai et al (2016) introduced a novel ERP-based CIT called the feedback-CIT (fCIT).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of mental countermeasures on a novel brain‐based feedback concealed information test

Zheng

Cheng

Wang

et al. 2022

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feedback concealed information test (fCIT) is a novel form of the CIT, providing participants with feedback regarding their memory concealment performance. The fCIT utilizes event-related potentials (recognition-P300 and feedback-related eventrelated potentials) and has been shown to provide high efficiency in detecting information concealment. However, it is unclear how well the fCIT performs in the presence of mental countermeasures. To address this question, participants were trained to use countermeasures during fCIT. Results showed that the recognition-P300 efficiency decreased when participants used countermeasures. However, the efficiencies of feedback-related negativity and feedback-P300 were unchanged, with feedback-P300 still showing a high detection efficiency (AUC = 0.86) during countermeasures. These findings demonstrate the potential of fCIT for subverting countermeasures.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of mental countermeasures on a novel brain‐based feedback concealed information test

Zheng

Cheng

Wang

et al. 2022

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, telling a lie relies on inhibiting the truth and formulating another answer; conflicts have to be monitored and solved ( Gombos, 2006 ; Sip et al., 2008 ). In ERP studies, larger MFN amplitudes occurred for deceptive compared to truthful responses ( Johnson et al., 2004 ; Kireev et al., 2008 ; Leue et al., 2012 ; Gibbons et al., 2018 ; Scheuble and Beauducel, 2020 ). Johnson et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Individuals scoring higher on Machiavellianism deceive more frequently, deceiving seems to be cognitively less strenuous for them, and they rate their abilities in deceiving higher ( Kashy and DePaulo, 1996 ; Gozna et al., 2001 ; Azizli et al., 2016 ; Wissing and Reinhard, 2019 ). Scheuble and Beauducel (2020 ) found a moderating effect of Machiavellianism on MFNs for female witnesses: The difference between MFN amplitudes of deceptive compared to honest responses was smaller for women scoring higher on Machiavellianism. Likewise, Panasiti et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive processes during deception about attitudes revisited: a replication study

Scheuble

Beauducel

2020

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Event-related potential (ERP) studies about deception often apply recognition tasks. It remains questionable whether reported ERP patterns and cognitive processes can be generalized to other contexts. As the study by Johnson et al. (2008) fills this gap by investigating deception regarding attitudes, we tried to replicate it. Participants (N = 99) were instructed to lie or tell the truth about their attitudes. We obtained the same results as Johnson et al. (2008): lies were accompanied by enhanced medial frontal negativities (MFN) and suppressed late positive components (LPCs) indicating that lying relied on stronger cognitive control processes and response conflicts than being honest. The amplitudes of pre-response positivities (PRP) were reduced for lies implying that lies about attitudes were accompanied by strategic monitoring. MFN amplitudes increased and LPC amplitudes decreased for lies about positively valued items revealing that lying about positively valued items is cognitively more challenging than lying about negatively valued items. As a new finding, MFN, LPC and PRP components were neither moderated by Machiavellianism nor by changes in the attitude ratings. The results indicate that LPC, MFN and PRP components are reliable indicators of the cognitive processes used during deception and that it is worthwhile to investigate them in further deception contexts.

show abstract

“…According to previous research, the frontal slow wave was associated with internal mental representation (Geangu et al, 2013 ; Meinhardt et al, 2011 ), and its amplitude during encoding reflects subsequent memory retrieval (Forester et al, 2020 ; Kamp et al, 2017 ; Kamp & Zimmer, 2015 ; Liu et al, 2017 ). Besides, deception was observed to be closely associated with P3 components in the parietal region (Leue & Beauducel, 2019 ; Rosenfeld, 2019 ; Scheuble & Beauducel, 2020 ; Suchotzki et al, 2015 ). Therefore, we mainly focus on the frontal slow wave and parietal P3.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous contexts

Mei

et al. 2022

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As one of the commonly used folk psychological concepts, self‐deception has been intensively discussed yet is short of solid ground from cognitive neuroscience. Self‐deception is a biased cognitive process of information to obtain or maintain a false belief that could be both self‐enhancing or self‐diminishing. Study 1 ( N = 152) captured self‐deception by adopting a modified numerical discrimination task that provided cheating opportunities, quantifying errors in predicting future performance (via item‐response theory model), and measuring the belief of how good they are at solving the task (i.e., self‐efficacy belief). By examining whether self‐efficacy belief is based upon actual ability (true belief) or prediction errors (false belief), Study 1 showed that self‐deception occurred in the effortless (easier access to answer cues) rather than effortful (harder access to answer cues) cheating opportunity conditions, suggesting high ambiguity in attributions facilitates self‐deception. Studies 2 and 3 probed the neural source of self‐deception, linking self‐deception with the metacognitive process. Both studies replicated behavioral results from Study 1. Study 2 (ERP study; N = 55) found that the amplitude of frontal slow wave significantly differed between participants with positive/self‐enhancing and negative/self‐diminishing self‐deceiving tendencies in incorrect predictions while remaining similar in correct predictions. Study 3 (functional magnetic resonance imaging study; N = 33) identified self‐deceiving associated activity in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex and showed that effortless cheating context increased cheating behaviors that further facilitated self‐deception. Our findings suggest self‐deception is a false belief associated with a distorted metacognitive mental process that requires ambiguity in attributions of behaviors.

show abstract

Individual differences in ERPs during deception: Observing vs. demonstrating behavior leading to a small social conflict

Cited by 9 publications

References 220 publications

The effect of mental countermeasures on a novel brain‐based feedback concealed information test

The effect of mental countermeasures on a novel brain‐based feedback concealed information test

Cognitive processes during deception about attitudes revisited: a replication study

Self‐deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About