Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test a new cognitive lie detection method, time restricted integrity confirmation (Tri-Con), which uses response time and inconsistencies across answers as cues to deception.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were obtained from two samples of students enrolled in psychology classes (n = 96 for Experiment 1, n = 99 for Experiment 2). The experimental task required students to lie or tell the truth to questions probing biodata under time restriction. The foci of questions (such as Academics or Employment History) were chosen because of their relevance to participants’ lives.

Findings

Tri-Con was able to distinguish between truth tellers and liars after controlling for individual differences. In one experiment, liar-truth teller classification accuracies reached 89%. Mean response times and answer consistency can be used to distinguish those who lie from those who tell the truth.

Implications

Research on cognitive-based lie detectors, such as Tri-Con, hold the potential for developing reliable and valid methods of screening out employees likely to engage in misconduct and providing deceptive answers to screening questions. A cognitive lie detector would constitute a paradigm shift away from the polygraph, and could be used in tandem with integrity tests.

Originality/value

This study was a preliminary test of a cognitive lie detection method based on a model of cognitive events (the Activation-Decision-Construction model) when people answer questions deceptively. It constitutes a step in translating laboratory-based cognitive research into applied technologies for the real world detection of lying, including lying that occurs during pre-employment screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests of faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 59–72. doi:10.1177/00131640021970367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., Stern, J. A., & Goldstein, R. (1990). The gaze control system and the detection of deception. (Rep. No. 90-F131400). Fort Jackson, South Carolina: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-processing theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, L. M. (2003). Employee selection. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00074.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (1997). Imaging cognition: An empirical review of PET studies with normal subjects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 1–26. doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caso, L., Gnisci, A., Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 195–202. doi:10.1002/jip.32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (CRSEP). (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. A. (2002). Sensory-perceptual episodic memory and its context. In A. Baddeley & J. P. Aggleton (Eds.), Episodic memory: New directions in research (pp. 53–70). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 703–716. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Harris, C. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–112. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dionisio, D. P., Granholm, E., Hillix, W. A., & Perrine, W. F. (2001). Differentiation of deception using papillary response as an index of cognitive processing. Psychophysiology, 38, 205–211. doi:10.1017/S0048577201990717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, S. L., & Kroeck, K. G. (1989). The impact of drug screening on selection decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(4), 402–411. doi:10.1007/BF01020708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, A. G., & Rafilson, F. M. (1989). Overt integrity tests versus personality-based measures of delinquency: An empirical comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(3), 269–277. doi:10.1007/BF01023045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1971). The assessment of wayward impulse by means of the personnel reaction blank. Personnel Psychology, 24, 669–677. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00380.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guastello, S. J., & Rieke, M. L. (1991). A review and critique of honesty test research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 501–523. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370090412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilveil, I. (1976). Deception and pupil size. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 443–449. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197607)32:3<675::AID-JCLP2270320340>3.0.CO;2-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personnel Selection Series manual.

  • Hollinger, R., & Davis, J. (2002). National retail security survey final report. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., & McGraw, W. R. (1988). Employee theft: A $40 billion industry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 489, 51–59. doi:10.1177/0002716288498001006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locker, L., & Pratarelli, M. C. (1997). Lexical decision and the detection of concealed information. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 93, 492–527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London House. (1989). Personnel selection inventory administrator’s manual. Park Ridge, IL: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther, N. (2000). Integrity testing and job performance within high performance work teams: A short note. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 19–25. doi:10.1023/A:1007762717488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, B. E., Adams, R. B., Anderson, D. E., Ansfield, M. E., & DePaulo, B. M. (1997). Strategies of deception and their correlates over the course of friendship. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Society: Washington, D.C.

  • McKay, D. G. (1982). The problem of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.5.483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menson, V., Boyett-Anderson, J. M., Schatzberg, A. F., & Reiss, A. L. (2002). Relating episodic and semantic memory systems. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 261–265. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00120-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). An empirical examination of overt and covert integrity tests. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 65–79. doi:10.1023/A:1022971016454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollian, J. (2003). Resume fraud in the corner office: Available at http://www. smeal.psu.edu/news/releases/nov02/resume.html.

  • Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analyses of integrity test validities. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paajanen, G. E. (1986). Development and validation of the PDI Employment Inventory Presented at the 94th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.

  • Pennebaker, J. W., & Chew, C. H. (1985). Behavioral inhibition and electodermal activity during deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1427–1433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of practice in fact retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 136–153. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, J. P. (2002). Event-related potentials in the detection of deception, malingering, and false memories. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 265–286). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakeability, reactions of test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(3), 248–256. doi:10.1007/BF01020813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled and automatic processing: Behaviors, theory, & biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 525–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shafto, M. G., & Mosmann, A. L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess “guilty knowledge”. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30–37. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solso, R. L. (2001). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, S. A., Farrow, T. F. D., Herford, A. E., Wilkinson, I. D., Zheng, Y., & Woodruff, P. W. R. (2001). Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans. NeuroReport, 12, 2849–2853. doi:10.1097/00001756-200109170-00019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vendemia, J. M. C., Buzan, R. F., & Green, E. P. (2005a). Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception. The American Journal of Psychology, 118, 413–429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vendemia, J. M. C., Buzan, R. F., & Simon-Dack, S. L. (2005b). Reaction time of motor responses in two-stimulus paradigms involving deception and congruity with varying levels of difficulty. Behavioural Neurology, 16, 25–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Edward, E., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263. doi:10.1023/A:1006610329284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seeman, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755–774. doi:10.1002/acp.914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Schwartz, J. P., Clifton, R., Adams, B., Wei, M., & Zha, P. (2005). Lying person to person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection. Personnel Psychology, 58, 141–170. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology & Behavioral Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, P.O. Box 10048, Ruston, LA, 71272, USA

    Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Kevin T. Mahoney & Diana A. Griffith-Ross

  2. University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    Dennis Doverspike

Authors
  1. Jeffrey J. Walczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin T. Mahoney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis Doverspike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana A. Griffith-Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey J. Walczyk.

Additional information

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 9.

Table 9 Foci and questions of experiment 1
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walczyk, J.J., Mahoney, K.T., Doverspike, D. et al. Cognitive Lie Detection: Response Time and Consistency of Answers as Cues to Deception. J Bus Psychol 24, 33–49 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9090-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation