Self‐deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous contexts

Abstract

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.

Psychometric properties of the CEMA-A questionnaire: motives for lying

“…Other authors emphasize its function as an avoidance strategy, such as avoiding distress (Fingarette, 1969;Sackeim, 1983). It has also been proposed that self-deception may arise from selective attention, whereby certain information is ignored or dismissed, despite evidence (Greenwald, 1997;Sharot, 2011), Other research suggests that self-deception is a cognitive process of biasing information to obtain or maintain a false belief that may be beneficial or detrimental to oneself (Mei et al, 2022). A close relationship has been found between self-deception and deception of others (Lu and Chang, 2014).…”

P300 as a correlate of false beliefs and false statements

“…Twenty Chinese‐speaking undergraduates at the Chinese University of Hong Kong participated after giving informed consent. The number of participants was determined in accordance with a power analysis using the G*Power software (Erdfelder et al., 1996), which indicated that a sample of 18 participants was needed to detect differences with a repeated measures ANOVA with power (1 − β ) set at 0.80, alpha at 0.05, and an estimated ŋ p 2 of 0.06 (medium) (Cohen, 1988; Mei et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2021). They were all right‐handed, had normal or corrected‐to‐normal vision and normal hearing, and were not diagnosed with any psychiatric or neurological disorders.…”

“…The number of participants was determined with a power analysis using the G*Power software (Erdfelder et al., 1996), indicating that a sample of 18 participants was needed to detect differences with a repeated measures ANOVA with power (1 − β ) set at 0.80, alpha at 0.05, and an estimated ŋ p 2 of 0.06, a medium effect size by Cohen's (1988) standard. The selection of a medium effect size was based on its use in previous ERP studies on false belief processing (e.g., Mei et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2021). They were right‐handed, had normal hearing, and normal or corrected‐to‐normal vision with no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders.…”

“…standard. The selection of a medium effect size was based on its use in previous ERP studies on false belief processing (e.g.,Mei et al, 2023;Wang et al, 2021). They were right-handed, had normal hearing, andnormal or corrected-to-normal vision with no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders.…”