Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.

Abstract

Lie detection techniques are frequently used, but most of them have been criticized for the lack of empirical support for their predictive validity and presumed underlying mechanisms. This situation has led to increased efforts to unravel the cognitive mechanisms underlying deception and to develop a comprehensive theory of deception. A cognitive approach to deception has reinvigorated interest in reaction time (RT) measures to differentiate lies from truths and to investigate whether lying is more cognitively demanding than truth telling. Here, we provide the results of a meta-analysis of 114 studies (n = 3307) using computerized RT paradigms to assess the cognitive cost of lying. Results revealed a large standardized RT difference, even after correction for publication bias (d = 1.049; 95% CI [0.930; 1.169]), with a large heterogeneity amongst effect sizes. Moderator analyses revealed that the RT deception effect was smaller, yet still large, in studies in which participants received instructions to avoid detection. The autobiographical Implicit Association Test produced smaller effects than the Concealed Information Test, the Sheffield Lie Test, and the Differentiation of Deception paradigm. An additional meta-analysis (17 studies, n = 348) showed that, like other deception measures, RT deception measures are susceptible to countermeasures. Whereas our meta-analysis corroborates current cognitive approaches to deception, the observed heterogeneity calls for further research on the boundary conditions of the cognitive cost of deception. RT-based measures of deception may have potential in applied settings, but countermeasures remain an important challenge. LYING TAKES TIME 3

Familiarity-based fillers improve the validity of reaction time-based memory detection

“…This is an attractive idea, precisely because of its simplicity. The effect size of the RT-520 based CIT is typically large, but there is also large heterogeneity (Suchotzki et al, 2016). In 521 the present study we (1) confirm the large effect size, (2) confirm that test protocol moderates 522 the effect size, and, most importantly, (3) show that a very simple intervention -the inclusion 523 of familiarity related fillers -significantly increased effect size.…”

Memory-based Deception Detection: Extending the Cognitive Signature of Lying from Instructed to Self-Initiated Cheating

“…Using a well-established paradigm (CIT; Lykken, 1959;Verschuere, Ben-Shakhar, & Meijer, 2011) and measure (RTs; Suchotzki et al, 2017), we instructed some participants to cheat on a trivia quiz, while providing others with an opportunity and incentive to cheat without an explicit instruction. Results of 294 memory detection tests replicated the typically observed response pattern (i.e., increased response latency for relevant items), with no differences between instructed and self-initiated cheaters.…”

“…Recent insights suggest that Response Inhibition (RI; Verschuere, Crombez, Koster, Van Bockstaele, & De Clercq, 2007) plays a critical role in obtaining the cognitive signature of lying, in particular for the RT-CIT (Suchotzki et al, 2017). The RT-CIT has been found to be influenced by neither item saliency nor by increased motivation to avoid detection (Kleinberg & Verschuere, 2016).…”

A meta-analysis of the P3 amplitude in tasks requiring deception in legal and social contexts

“…Hunter and Schmidt (2004) Hedges g or d* (e.g., Meijer et al, 2014;Suchotzki et al, 2017). We used the formula presented in Hunter and Schmidt (2004, p. 284-285) Reliability studies suggest that ERPs are more reliably measured with a larger number of averaged epochs (e.g., Fabiani, Gratton, Karis, & Donchin, 1987;Leue et al, 2013;MarcoPallares et al, 2011;Pollock & Schneider, 1992).…”

“…These meta-analyses were based on studies investigating response times (Bond & DePaulo, 2006;Suchotzki, Verschuere, Van Bockstaele, & Ben-Shakhar, 2017), electrodermal measures (Ben-Shakhar & Elaad, 2003;Meijer, Klein Selle, Elber, & Ben-Shakhar, 2014), the P3 amplitude (Meijer et al, 2014), and functional magnet resonance imaging data (Christ, Van Essen, Watson, Brubaker, & McDermott, 2009). These meta-analyses incorporated exclusively deception tasks in legal settings entitled as guilty knowledge tests (GKT) or concealed information tests (CIT, Lykken, 1959, 1974Verschuere & Ben-Shakhar, 2011).…”