Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception

American Journal of Psychology

Volumn 118, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 413-429

  Vendemia, Jennifer M C ^a   Buzan, Robert F ^a   Green, Eric P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; LEARNING; REACTION TIME; RECUMBENCY; WORKLOAD;

DECEPTION; HUMANS; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); REACTION TIME; WORKLOAD;

EID: 27744576939     PISSN: 00029556     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allen, J. B., & Iacono, W. G. (1997). A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection. Psychophysiology, 34, 234-240.
2. Allen, J. B., Iacono, W. G., & Danielson, K, D. (1992). The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavior measures: A methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences. Psychophysiology, 29, 504-522.
3. Backster, C. (1963). Standardized polygraph notepack and technique guide: Backster zone comparison technique. New York: Backster School of Lie Detection.
4. Bashore, T. R., & Rapp, P. E. (1993). Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures? Psychological Bulletin, 113, 3-22.
5. Boaz, T. L., Perry, N. W., Raney, G., Fischler, I. S., & Schuman, D. (1991). Detection of guilty knowledge with event-related potentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 788-795.
6. Crosland, H. R. (1929). The psychological methods of word-association and reaction-time as tests of deception. Oregon: University of Oregon Publications.
7. Downar, J., Crawley, A. P., Mikulis, D. J., & Davis, K. D. (2002). A cortical network sensitive to stimulus salience in a neutral behavioral context across multiple sensory modalities. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87, 615-620.
8. Ellwanger, J., Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J. J., & Bhatt, M. (1996). Detecting simulated amnesia for autobiographical and recently learned information using the P300 event-related potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 9-23.
9. English, H. B. (1926). Reaction-time symptoms of deception. American Journal of Psychology, 37, 428-429.
10. Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1991). The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (lie detection) with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 28, 531-547.
11. Furedy, J. J. (1993). The "control" question "test" (CQT) polygrapher's dilemma: Logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 15, 263-267.
12. Furumitsu, I. (2000). Laboratory investigations in the psychophysiological detection of deception. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 583.
13. Gheorghiu, V. A., & Huebner, M. (1992). Die Sensorische Suggestibilitätsskala (SSK) als Erhebungsverfahren für Täuschbarkeit [The Scale of Sensory Suggestibility as assessment of deception]. Experimentelle und Klinische Hypnose, 8, 117-129.
14. Goldstein, E. R. (1923). Reaction times and the consciousness of deception. American Journal of Psychology, 34, 562-581.
15. Honts, C. R. (1998). Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application. Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
16. Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
17. Horowitz, S., Kircher, J. C., & Honts, C. R. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108-115.
18. Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact F distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Associations, 65, 1582-1589.
19. Johnson, R. Jr., Barnhardt. J., & Zhu, J. (2003). The deceptive response: Effects of response conflict and strategic monitoring on the late positive component and episodic memory-related brain activity. Biological Psychology, 64, 217-253.
20. Johnson, R. Jr., Barnhardt, J., & Zhu, J. (2004). The contribution of executive processes to deceptive responding. Neuropsychologia, 42, 878-901.
21. Jones, A. D., Cho, R. Y, Nystrom, L. E., Cohen, J. D., & Braver, T. S. (2002). A computational model of anterior cingulated function in speeded response tasks: Effects of frequency, sequence, and conflict. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 300-317.
22. Kok, A. (2001 ). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38, 557-577.
23. Krapohl, D., & Sturm, S. (2002). Terminology reference for the science of psychophysiological detection of deception (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Polygraph Association.
24. Larson, J. A. (1932). Lying and its detection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Luria, A. R. (1930). Die Methode des abbildenden Motorik in der Tatbestands-Diagnostik [The method of recording movements in crime detection]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie, 35, 139-183.
26. Lykken, D. T. (1959). Properties of electrodes used in electrodermal measurement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 629-634.
27. Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258-262.
28. Lykken, D. T. (1984). Trial by polygraph. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2, 75-92.
29. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum.
30. Mager, H. (1931). Deception: A study in forensic psychology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 183-198.
31. Marston, W. (1920). Reaction time symptoms of deception. Lancet, 60, 72-87.
32. Marston, W. M. (1921). Psychological possibilities in the deception tests. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 11, 551-570.
33. Marston, W. M. (1925). Negative type reaction-time symptoms of deception. Psychological Review, 32, 241-247.
34. Matsuda, T, Hira, S., Nakata, M., & Kakigi, S. (1990). The effect of one's own name upon event related potentials: Event related (P3 and CNV) as an index of deception. Japanese Journal of Physiological Psychology and Psychophysiology, 9,9-18.
35. Neath, I, & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Human memory (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
36. Pollina, D. A., & Squires, N. K. (1998). Many-valued logic and event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 63, 321-345.
37. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception: The polygraph ("lie detection") technique. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
38. Rosenfeld, J. P. (1995). Alternative views of Bashore and Rapp's (1993) alternatives to traditional polygraphy: A critique. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 159-166.
39. Rosenfeld, J. P. (1998). Event-related potentials in detection of deception. International journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 27.
40. Rosenfeld, J. P., Sweet, J. J., Chuang J., Ellwanger J., & Song, L. (1996). Detection of simulated malingering using forced choice recognition enhanced with event-related potential recording. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2, 163-179.
41. Sasaki, M., Hira, S., & Matsuda, T. (2001). Effects of a mental countermeasure on the physiological detection of deception using the event-related brain potentials. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 74, 322-328.
42. Schroeder, S. R. (1997). Selective eye fixation during transfer of discriminative stimulus control. In D. M. Baer & E. M. Pinkston (Eds.), Environment and behavior (pp. 97-110). Boulder, CO: Westview.
43. Seymour, T. L., Seifert, C. M., Shaft, M. G., & Mosmann, L. (2000). Using response time measures to assess "guilty knowledge." Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 30-37.
44. Stelmack, R. M., Houlihan, M., & Doucet, C. (1994). Event-related potentials and the detection of deception: A two-stimulus paradigm. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
45. Stelmack, R. M., Houlihan, M., Doucet, C., & Belisle, M. (1994). Event-related potentials and the detection of deception: A two-stimulus paradigm. Psychophysiology, 7, s94.
46. Vendemia, J. M. C. (2002). Hobson's choice: The relationship between consequences and the comparison question. Polygraph, 31, 20-25.
47. Vendemia, J. M. C. (2003). Neural mechanisms of deception and response congruity to general knowledge information and autobiographical information in visual two-stimulus paradigms with motor response. Fort Jackson, SC: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI99-P-0010).
48. Vendemia, J. M. C., & Buzan, R. F. (2003). Neural mechanisms of deception and response congruity in a visual two stimulus paradigm involving autobiographical information. Psychophysiology, 40(Suppl. 1), S88.
49. Vendemia, J. M. C., Buzan, R. F., & Simon-Dack, S. L. (2005). Reaction time of motor responses in two-stimulus paradigms involving deception and congruity with varying levels of difficulty. Behavioural Neurology, 16.
50. Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 203-215.
51. Wertheimer, M., King, D. B., Peckler, M. A., & Raney, S. (1992). Carl Jung and Max Wertheimer on a priority issue. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 2, 45-56.