Cognitive-load approaches to detect deception: Searching for cognitive mechanisms

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 441-444

  Blandón Gitlin, Iris ^a   Fenn, Elise ^a,b   Masip, Jaume ^c   Yoo, Aspen H ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; COGNITIVE LOAD APPROACH; DECEPTION; ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; INTERVIEW; LEGAL EVIDENCE; NEUROIMAGING; NOTE; RECALL; REVERSE ORDER TECHNIQUE; STRATEGICUSE OF EVIDENCE TECHNIQUE; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE; WORKING MEMORY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY;

COGNITION; DECEPTION; HUMANS; LIE DETECTION;

EID: 84906564743     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: 1879307X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.004     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Vrij A., et al. Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10:141-142.
2. Walczyk J.J., et al. Lying person to person about life events: a cognitive framework for lie detection. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58:141-170.
3. Vrij A., Granhag P.A. Eliciting cues to deception and truth: what matters are the questions asked. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2012, 1:110-117.
4. Vrij A., et al. Outsmarting the liars: toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 20:28-32.
5. Hartwig M., et al. Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: the state of the science. Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications 2014, 1-36. Academic Press. D.C. Raskin, A. et (Eds.).
6. Evans J.R., et al. Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: introducing a psychologically based credibility assessment tool. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:33-41.
7. Walczyk J.J., et al. Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: a review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4. 1664-1078.
8. Christ S.E., et al. The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cereb. Cortex 2009, 19:1557-1566.
9. Thomas J.G., et al. Forward and backward recall: different response time patterns, same retrieval order. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14:169-174.
10. Addis D., Schacter D.L. The hippocampus and imagining the future: where do we stand?. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2012, 5:1-15.
11. Hoffmann J.A., et al. Deliberation's blindsight: how cognitive load can improve judgments. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24:869-879.
12. Tuk M.A., et al. Inhibitory spillover: increased urination urgency facilitates impulse control in unrelated domains. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22:627-633.
13. Honts R.C., Hartwig M. Credibility assessment at portals. Credibility Assessment: Scientific Research and Applications 2014, 37-61. Academic Press. D.C. Raskin (Ed.).
14. Porter S., ten Brinke L. Reading between the lies: identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19:508-514.