title: When interference helps: increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information test.
abstract: The possibility to enhance the detection efficiency of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) by increasing executive load was investigated, using an interference design. After learning and executing a mock crime scenario, subjects underwent three deception detection tests: an RT-based CIT, an RT-based CIT plus a concurrent memory task (CITMem), and an RT-based CIT plus a concurrent set-shifting task (CITShift). The concealed information effect, consisting in increased RT and lower response accuracy for probe items compared to irrelevant items, was evidenced across all three conditions. The group analyses indicated a larger difference between RTs to probe and irrelevant items in the dual-task conditions, but this difference was not translated in a significantly increased detection efficiency at an individual level. Signal detection parameters based on the comparison with a simulated innocent group showed accurate discrimination for all conditions. Overall response accuracy on the CITMem was highest and the difference between response accuracy to probes and irrelevants was smallest in this condition. Accuracy on the concurrent tasks (Mem and Shift) was high, and responses on these tasks were significantly influenced by CIT stimulus type (probes vs. irrelevants). The findings are interpreted in relation to the cognitive load/dual-task interference literature, generating important insights for research on the involvement of executive functions in deceptive behavior.
authors.affiliation: Applied Cognitive Psychology Center, Department of Psychology, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
authors.forename: George
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Visu-Petra
authors.forename: Mihai
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Varga
authors.forename: Mircea
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Miclea
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Visu-Petra
keywords: cognitive load; concealed information test; deception detection; executive functions; interference design
references.citation: J R Soc Med. 2004 Jan;97(1):6-9
references.pmid: 14702355
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2007 Sep;44(5):814-22
references.pmid: 17584188
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Apr;10(4):141-2
references.pmid: 16516533
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Dec;31(8):1169-80
references.pmid: 15058678
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Jun;140(2):133-41
references.pmid: 22627157
references.citation: Law Hum Behav. 2008 Jun;32(3):253-65
references.pmid: 17694424
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Dec;28(12):1287-301
references.pmid: 17290371
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Aug;41(1):49-100
references.pmid: 10945922
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Dec;121(3):416-21
references.pmid: 21861997
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 2007 Sep;76(1-2):52-60
references.pmid: 17656000
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1993 May;113(3):566-79
references.pmid: 8316614
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Sep 12;3:342
references.pmid: 23060826
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 30;3:526
references.pmid: 23226137
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2003 Feb;88(1):131-51
references.pmid: 12675401
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2011 Jun;48(6):733-44
references.pmid: 20958308
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1483-98
references.pmid: 11185778
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1994 Sep;116(2):220-44
references.pmid: 7972591
references.citation: Law Hum Behav. 2009 Apr;33(2):159-66
references.pmid: 18523881
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1991 Sep;28(5):531-47
references.pmid: 1758929
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;23(10):1079-85
references.pmid: 22894937
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2001 Sep 17;12(13):2849-53
references.pmid: 11588589
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1999 Nov;125(6):777-99
references.pmid: 10589302
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2009 Jul;19(7):1557-66
references.pmid: 18980948
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Jun;125(2):159-80
references.pmid: 8683192
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2012 Aug;49(8):1090-100
references.pmid: 22681260
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1985 May;22(3):292-9
references.pmid: 4011799
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1989 Mar;26(2):208-21
references.pmid: 2727223
references.citation: Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 2006 Aug;132(3):197-214
references.pmid: 17969998
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Mar;12(2):101-8
references.pmid: 11340917
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2008 Apr;68(1):6-16
references.pmid: 18180065
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(7):878-901
references.pmid: 14998703
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2000 Feb;85(1):30-7
references.pmid: 10740954
references.citation: Soc Neurosci. 2009;4(6):554-69
references.pmid: 18654937
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003 Dec;9(4):261-9
references.pmid: 14664677
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2011 Jun;80(3):217-26
references.pmid: 21440579
references.citation: Am Psychol. 1974 Oct;29(10):725-39
references.pmid: 4451301
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Feb;142(2):278-85
references.pmid: 23376139
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 12;3:488
references.pmid: 23162520