Need for Cognition and the process of lie detection
Section snippets
The process of lie detection
While a number of theories have been developed to explain why people may behave differently when they are lying as opposed to telling the truth (e.g., Buller & Burgoon, 1996, DePaulo et al., 2003, Ekman, 1992, Ekman & Friesen, 1969, Sporer, 2004, Sporer & Schwandt, 2006, Sporer & Schwandt, 2007, Vrij, 2000, Zuckerman & Driver, 1985; Zuckerman et al., 1981), the process of lie detection by laypersons has received little attention until most recently (Bond & DePaulo, 2006, Forrest & Feldman, 2000
The present research
As stated above, the degree of cognitive effort individuals are willing or able to invest in the process of credibility attribution may depend on situational variables (such as distraction or situational relevance) and on dispositional differences in cognitive motivation (e.g., NFC). NFC was found to be an essential variable in dual process models to explain the formation of attitude judgments (cf., Cacioppo et al., 1983, Cacioppo et al., 1996, Priester & Petty, 1995).
The aim of this paper is
Participants
Ninety-four female and 66 male students at the University of Giessen (mean age = 23.3) participated for departmental credit.
Design
The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, with verbal information (truthful cues vs. deceptive cues) and nonverbal information (truthful cues vs. deceptive cues); 40 participants were randomly assigned to each of the four cells in the design.
Stimulus material
Four parallel versions of a short film (2 min long) about a conversation between a woman (Anna) looking for a successor to take over
Participants
One hundred twenty-four female and 124 male students at the University of Giessen (mean age = 23.9) participated as volunteers in partial fulfilment of departmental requirements. The study lasted 20 min.
Design
The design was a 2 × 2 × 2 between-participants design, with verbal information (truthful cues vs. deceptive cues), nonverbal information (truthful cues vs. deceptive cues), and participants’ cognitive load (low vs. high) completely crossed. Thirty-one participants were randomly assigned to each of the
Participants
Fifty female and 48 male students at the University of Mannheim (mean age = 23.0) participated as volunteers in partial fulfilment of departmental requirements. The study lasted 20 min.
Design
The design was a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-model design. Sex of participants was a between-participants factor, and type of message (truthful vs. deceptive), valence of attitude (like vs. dislike), and sex of targets were within-participants factors. Valence of attitude, sex of participants, and sex of targets were included as
Participants
Thirty female and 57 male students at the University of Mannheim (mean age = 24.7) participated as volunteers in partial fulfilment of departmental requirements. The study lasted 40 min.
Design
The design was a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-model design. Sex of participants was a between-participants factors, and type of message (truthful vs. deceptive) and sex of targets were within-participants factors. Both sex of participants and sex of targets were included as control factors but were not expected to influence the
References (64)
- et al.
The miscommunication of deception: an adaptive perspective
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1985) - et al.
Diagnosing deceptive and mixed messages from verbal and nonverbal cues
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1982) - et al.
A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation
- et al.
Brand name as a heuristic cue: the effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(1992) - et al.
Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: the impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2008) - et al.
Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception
Forensic Examiner
(2006) - et al.
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1991) - et al.
Lay persons' and police officers' beliefs regarding deceptive behavior
Applied Cognitive Psychology
(1996) - et al.
Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1979) - et al.
Need for cognition: a scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie
(1994)
The validity effect: a search for mediating variables
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Accuracy of deception judgments
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Individual differences in judging deception
Psychological Bulletin
A dual process model of impression formation
Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories
Interpersonal deception theory
Communication Theory
The need for cognition
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition
Psychological Bulletin
Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context
Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for behavioral sciences
Cues to deception
Psychological Bulletin
Telling lies
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage
Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception
Psychiatry
Who can catch a liar?
The American Psychologist
The continuum model: ten years later
Detecting deception and judge's involvement: lower task involvement leads to better lie detection
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cited by (45)
Human Lie-Detection Performance: Does Random Assignment versus Self-Selection of Liars and Truth-Tellers Matter?
2020, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and CognitionTruthiness, the illusory truth effect, and the role of need for cognition
2020, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :Given that those who are high on NFC are less likely to rely on experiential features of a message, they may be less influenced by the presence of a photograph and accompanying ease of processing. Moreover, research on NFC shows that those who are high on NFC are better at detecting when evidence is probative or not (McAuliff & Kovera, 2008; see also Reinhard, 2010) and are more inclined to correct for any salient source of bias on their judgements (Wegener & Petty, 1997). These findings from the persuasion literature suggest that those who are high on NFC may be less influenced by a photo because they are more likely to notice that the photo is nondiagnostic of whether the claim is true and account for potential bias.
Catching the liar as a matter of justice: Effects of belief in a just world on deception detection accuracy and the moderating role of mortality salience
2015, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :By referring to dual process models of persuasion highlighting the role of motivation and resources in message processing (e.g., Chen & Chaiken, 1999), recent research on deception detection found that high accuracy motivation and high processing resources foster systematic attention to the content of the message (cf. Forrest & Feldman, 2000). Consequently, high motivation to accurately detect deception (e.g., negative mood, high need for cognition) was shown to lead to higher discrimination accuracy between truthful and deceptive messages (e.g., Reinhard, 2010; Reinhard & Schwarz, 2012). Reinhard (2010), for example, assessed participants’ need for cognition, a well-established individual difference variable that captures individuals’ tendency to think carefully about new information.
Challenges in detecting proximal effects of existential threat on lie detection accuracy
2023, Current PsychologyIs the uncertain self good at detecting lies? The influence of personal uncertainty on deception detection
2023, European Journal of Social Psychology