错误记忆的可植入性

错误记忆具有可植入性。植入性错误记忆常常与真实记忆发生混淆, 成为个体经验的一部分, 进而影响人们的思想、态度和行为。植入错误记忆的范式主要有错误反馈技术、想象膨胀、照片修改范式以及盛情-欺骗范式。研究表明, 植入性错误记忆发生在饮食、消费以及攻击行为等活动中。植入性错误记忆与真实记忆的辨别主要包括结果、情绪、持续性以及生理机制四个方面。植入性错误记忆的解释主要有联结观和多阶段模型。目前研究存在许多问题, 包括要求特征、认知反应、范式选取以及实验伦理等。未来研究需要对植入错误记忆方法的有效性、个体特征与错误记忆植入的匹配、植入性错误记忆行为结果的测量以及实际应用等进行探讨。     

欺骗的神经机制和测谎应用:来自fMRI研究的证据

功能核磁共振成像技术在探讨欺骗机制和开发测谎技术中的应用是目前的研究热点,前者使用多种范式来考察假装失忆、故意错误及人际交互中的欺骗行为的认知和神经机制,而后者主要沿用传统的GKT和CQT范式检测欺骗行为。已有研究突显了前额叶和顶叶这些参与执行控制过程的脑区在欺骗中的核心作用,但基于这些脑区信号进行测谎时,得到的准确率不容乐观。未来研究应探索除执行控制过程外的欺骗的其它认知成分,尝试从"记忆痕迹"和"欺骗结果"等方面寻找测谎的新线索。并应揭示"欺骗特质"的神经基础,以启发"忠诚度"的测量方法。     

事件相关电位测谎技术原理探析

目前国内对于事件相关电位测谎技术的研究主要侧重于方法设计和应用探索方面,而从原理上来看,事件相关电位测谎技术主要涉及记忆的再认和欺骗反应两个认知加工过程。本研究对记忆的再认和欺骗反应这两个过程进行了分析,并总结论述了个体在这两个认知加工过程中所产生的相关脑电效应及成分(Dm效应,P300等)和相关研究,深层次阐释了事件相关电位测谎技术的原理,为进一步提高事件相关电位测谎技术的效率提供了理论支持。     

分析性认知风格对偏差反应与冲突探查的影响

采用2Wingdings 2MC@2Wingdings 2MC@2混合设计和相关分析法,考察个体的分析性认知风格对其在完成有、无冲突的推理判断任务时的逻辑反应倾向和冲突探查过程的影响。结果表明分析性认知风格不会直接影响被试完成推理任务的逻辑反应倾向性,高、低分析性认知风格倾向组被试在逻辑反应正确率上不存在显著差异; 但对个体的冲突探查过程会有影响,高、低认知风格倾向组被试在反应自信率上存在显著差异,且冲突探查大小与分析性认知风格显著负相关,这一结果表明那些高分析性认知风格倾向的个体在完成冲突任务时,更可能探查到刻板反应与遵从逻辑规则做出的反应之间的冲突。     

主动性和反应性认知控制的权衡机制及影响因素

主动性控制和反应性控制是认知控制研究的新视角。前者通过在反应前维持目标相关信息的表征来预防冲突, 后者在反应时重激活目标相关信息以解决冲突。个体能够在这两种认知控制间进行权衡从而形成最优反应。通过AX-CPT等实验范式, 辅以ERP、fMRI技术可分离两种认知控制, 并观察到认知控制相关的脑区在激活时间和强度上的差异。个体生理发展、认知因素(期望、流体智力、训练)、非认知因素(情绪、动机等)均能影响认知控制的权衡。未来的研究应多关注这一权衡的内在神经机制和认知机制, 并与传统认知控制研究相结合, 在理论和应用上取得更进一步的发展。     

冲突图式对情绪的人际效应的调节

人际冲突中情绪人际效应通过情感反应和推断加工影响着人际冲突中的个体行为。这一效应受到了人际冲突图式的调节。人际冲突图式对于情绪人际效应的调节作用主要表现在两方面:1)冲突图式通过调节注意资源影响对于情绪的推断加工;2)冲突图式通过影响个体的认知动机和对情境的互依性知觉影响着情感反应、推断加工的相对力量。今后需要全面考察各种符合现实生活的情绪人际效应,同时加强本土化研究,进而建构更具解释力的整合模型。     

认知判断中手部动作模拟的fMRI研究

该研究采用功能磁共振成像技术,考察不同条件下进行工具认知判断时手部姿势对认知判断的影响及动作模拟的神经机制。实验发现：手部姿势存在显著的主效应,冲突手部姿势条件下反应时最慢,且冲突手部姿势条件下与不冲突手部姿势条件下、自然状态条件下反应时存在显著差异,自然状态条件与不冲突手部姿势条件下反应时不存在显著差异。另外,f MRI成像结果发现,额中回、额下回、顶下小叶以及辅助运动区在自然状态下有显著激活,表明个体在进行认知判断过程中有动作模拟过程;海马结构、扣带回及楔前叶等与记忆有关的脑区有显著激活,表明身体经验在认知过程的作用。总的研究表明,不同的手部姿势状态对认知判断有不同影响,冲突手部姿势会对动作模拟产生干扰作用,手部动作模拟的神经机制主要涉及镜像神经元区,且在认知判断时存在具身效应。     

无意识冲突的发生机制：基于Stroop范式的探讨

无意识信息对人们的行为有着十分重要的影响,它不仅能触发相对低级的认知功能而且也能触发冲突控制等相对高级的认知功能。尽管已有研究从行为和认知神经研究两个方面强有力地证实了无意识冲突的存在,但对无意识冲突是源自中枢加工产生的语义冲突还是晚期动作选择中产生的反应冲突存在激烈的争议。本研究采用分离语义冲突和反应冲突的实验逻辑在Stroop掩蔽启动任务中探讨了无意识冲突的机制。结果发现,无意识Stroop效应中既包含语义冲突又包含反应冲突。这说明无意识冲突可能由语义冲突和反应冲突共同构成。实验结果也进一步支持了无意识刺激可以加工到语义水平的观点。     

价值取向与社会距离影响经济决策的合作与冲突行为：Chicken Game的证据

采用Chicken Game博弈任务,考察了不同社会价值取向个体（亲社会者与亲自我者）在面对不同社会距离的博弈对手（朋友和陌生人）时表现出的合作与冲突行为。研究结果发现：（1）社会价值取向与社会距离交互影响个体的合作与冲突行为;（2）社会价值取向影响选择策略的反应时,亲社会者选择合作的反应时长于选择冲突的反应时,亲自我者选择合作与选择冲突的反应时没有显著差异;（3）无论对亲社会者还是亲自我者,反馈类型都显著影响个体的合作与冲突行为的选择率以及随后决策的反应时。上述结果表明,个体的合作或冲突行为,并非单一地受到社会价值取向的影响,更可能是受到个人因素（社会价值取向）与其他社会因素（比如,社会距离）的共同调节,并且在这一过程中个体会根据决策后反馈信息不断的调整自己的行为策略。     

双语者有更好的冲突监控水平吗？

冲突监控是个体负责处理冲突信息的认知系统。关于双语经验能否提高个体的冲突监控水平的问题,目前还存在争论。本文在行为和认知神经证据基础上,总结了两种对立的观点并进行分析。未来研究应不再执着于验证双语优势,从双语经验可能影响冲突监控功能的角度展开;在内涵更丰富的理论模型指导下,采用更多的纵向研究,在科学划分单语者与双语者的基础上,考虑语言相似性问题,并设置能反映更高认知水平的任务范式继续探究双语经验对冲突监控功能的影响。     

Does Practice Make the Perfect Liar? The Effect of Rehearsal and Increased Cognitive Load on Cues to Deception

Recent studies have explored ways to increase cognitive load in liars to identify cues to deception. This study used a driving simulator as a load‐inducing technique to explore differences between truth‐tellers and liars during an investigative interview scenario and also investigated the effect of rehearsing lies in this context. Deception affected driving performance. Truth‐tellers drove more slowly compared with their own baseline, whereas unrehearsed liars sped up. There was no difference in speed between truth‐tellers and rehearsed liars. In addition, truth‐tellers had significantly faster reaction times compared with their own baseline, than both rehearsed and unrehearsed liars. During the interviews, truth‐tellers provided significantly more visual and auditory details and mentioned significantly fewer cognitive operations than liars. The findings add to the body of literature exploring the optimal relationship between cognitive load and secondary task performance to identify cues to deception.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are you for real? Exploring language use and unexpected process questions within the detection of identity deception

The current study was to test whether reality monitoring and language use could distinguish identity liars from truth tellers when answering outcome questions and unexpected process questions. Truth tellers (n = 30) and liars (n = 30) discussed their identity in a recruitment interview. No differences emerged between truth tellers and liars in the details they provided. In terms of language use, liars used more positive language than truth tellers, whereas truth tellers used more cognitive process words than liars. However, neither were more pronounced when asking process questions. Overall, process questions elicited more cognitive process and cause words than outcome questions. Therefore, process questions may be able to contribute to the cognitive load approach. The findings suggest that reality monitoring may not be diagnostic when applied to identity deception. We discuss the language use differences in relation to impression management theory.     

Collective interviewing of suspects

When people are interviewed about possible wrongdoing that has been committed in groups, they typically are interviewed separately. Yet, in several settings it would be more intuitive and convenient to interview suspects together. Importantly, such collective interviews could yield verbal cues to deception. This is the first deception experiment to investigate collective interviewing. Twenty-one pairs of truth tellers and 22 pairs of liars were interviewed pair-wise about having had lunch together in a restaurant. Given that truth tellers adopt a “tell it all” strategy in the interviews while, in contrast, liars prefer to keep their stories simple, we predicted that pairs of truth tellers would (i) interrupt and (ii) correct each other more, and would (iii) add more information to each other's answers than pairs of liars. The results supported these hypotheses. Theory-driven interventions to elicit more cues to deception through simultaneous interviewing are discussed.     

Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit

We examined the effect of deliberate mimicry on eliciting (accurate) information and cues to deceit. Mimicry is considered to facilitate cooperation and compliance in truth tellers, whereas liars are constrained to provide detail. We therefore expected truth tellers to be more detailed than liars, particularly after being mimicked. A total of 165 participants told the truth or lied about a meeting they attended. During the interview, an interviewer mimicked half of the participants. Truth tellers were more detailed than liars, but only in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Truth tellers also gave more accurate units of information than liars, and the difference was most pronounced in the ‘mimicry present’ condition. Mimicry as a tool for eliciting information and cues to deceit fits well with the emerging ‘interviewing to detect deception’ literature, particularly in the ‘encouraging interviewees to say more’ approach. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments

Decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting lies. Two explanations for this finding have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that lie detection is inaccurate because people rely on invalid cues when judging deception. Second, it has been suggested that lack of valid cues to deception limits accuracy. A series of 4 meta-analyses tested these hypotheses with the framework of Brunswik's (1952) lens model. Meta-Analysis 1 investigated perceived cues to deception by correlating 66 behavioral cues in 153 samples with deception judgments. People strongly associate deception with impressions of incompetence (r = .59) and ambivalence (r = .49). Contrary to self-reports, eye contact is only weakly correlated with deception judgments (r = -.15). Cues to perceived deception were then compared with cues to actual deception. The results show a substantial covariation between the 2 sets of cues (r = .59 in Meta-Analysis 2, r = .72 in Meta-Analysis 3). Finally, in Meta-Analysis 4, a lens model analysis revealed a very strong matching between behaviorally based predictions of deception and behaviorally based predictions of perceived deception. In conclusion, contrary to previous assumptions, people rarely rely on the wrong cues. Instead, limitations in lie detection accuracy are mainly attributable to weaknesses in behavioral cues to deception. The results suggest that intuitive notions about deception are more accurate than explicit knowledge and that lie detection is more readily improved by increasing behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers than by informing lie-catchers of valid cues to deception.     

Lying about flying: The efficacy of the information protocol and model statement for detecting deceit

Due to time constraints, interviews aimed to detect deception in airport settings should be brief and veracity assessments should be made in real time. In two experiments carried out in the departure hall of an international airport, truth tellers were asked to report truthfully their forthcoming trip, whereas liars were asked to lie about the purpose of their trip. In Experiment 1, we examined five verbal cues that we thought had potential to discriminate truth tellers from liars in short airport interviews: elaboration in disclosing information, checkable details, how many people are aware of the trip, complications, and plausibility. In Experiment 2, we attempted to improve the interview protocol by adding a second interview phase in which we introduced an information protocol and model statement. All five cues differentiated truth tellers from liars in both experiments, but the information protocol and model statement did not enhance these differences.     

PREPARED LIES,SPONTANEOUS LIES,MACHIAVELLIANISM, AND NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

This study investigated cue leakage during deception of factual information for both prepared and spontaneous types of lies. Liars anticipating lying engaged in less postural shifting and shorter latencies than truth tellers prior to lying. During a prepared lie, liars engaged in shorter latencies, shorter message durations, more affirmative head nodding, less smiling, and more body adaptors than truth tellers did. During a spontaneous lie, liars engaged in more body adaptors than truth tellers. No substantive differences were obtained between truth tellers and liars after the lying behavior was completed. Cues were not leaked differently by high and low Machiavellians.     

Partners in Crime: How Liars in Collusion Betray Themselves1

The paradigmatic task for participants in studies on deception is to assess veracity on the basis of a single statement. However, in applied contexts, lie catchers are often faced with multiple statements (reported by one or several suspects). To appreciate this mismatch, we conducted a study where each member of 10 truth‐telling pairs and 10 lying pairs (reporting fabricated alibis) was interrogated twice about an alibi. As predicted, lying pair members were more consistent between themselves than were truth‐telling pair members, and single liars and truth tellers were equally consistent over time. Furthermore, truth tellers made more commissions than did liars. Although in line with our repeat vs. reconstruct hypothesis, these findings contrast sharply with beliefs held by professional lie catchers and recommendations found in literature on deception detection. The results are translated into an applied psycholegal context.     

The inhibitory spillover effect: Controlling the bladder makes better liars

The Inhibitory-Spillover-Effect (ISE) on a deception task was investigated. The ISE occurs when performance in one self-control task facilitates performance in another (simultaneously conducted) self-control task. Deceiving requires increased access to inhibitory control. We hypothesized that inducing liars to control urination urgency (physical inhibition) would facilitate control during deceptive interviews (cognitive inhibition). Participants drank small (low-control) or large (high-control) amounts of water. Next, they lied or told the truth to an interviewer. Third-party observers assessed the presence of behavioral cues and made true/lie judgments. In the high-control, but not the low-control condition, liars displayed significantly fewer behavioral cues to deception, more behavioral cues signaling truth, and provided longer and more complex accounts than truth-tellers. Accuracy detecting liars in the high-control condition was significantly impaired; observers revealed bias toward perceiving liars as truth-tellers. The ISE can operate in complex behaviors. Acts of deception can be facilitated by covert manipulations of self-control.