Liar Liar Neurons Fire: How Executive Control Processes Contribute to the Ability to Deceive
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LIAR LIAR NEURONS FIRE: HOW EXECUTIVE CONTROL PROCESSES CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABILITY TO DECEIVE Ian John Watkins A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of New South Wales Faculty of Science School of Psychology July 2015 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Watkins First name: Ian Other name/s: John Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: School of Psychology Faculty: Faculty of Science Title: Liar liar neurons fire: how executive control processes contribute to the ability to deceive Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) This thesis presents a series of empirical investigations into the executive demands of deception. The first two experiments investigated whether the executive demands of deception are sufficient to influence receiver perceptions of credibility. Participant-senders in Study 1 (n = 52) and Study 2 (n = 97) completed a false opinion task and a battery of cognitive tasks. Deception performance was operationalized via participant-receiver judgements of veracity (Study 1, n = 624; Study 2, n = 1140). While the results from Study 1 showed a small positive relationship between executive abilities and deception performance, the results from Study 2 were stronger. They indicated that while working memory skill had a moderate positive relationship with deception performance, set shifting and inhibitory control skills were unrelated to deception performance once working memory skill had been taken into account. The third study used a resource depletion framework to experimentally manipulate executive abilities. Participant-senders (n = 114) completed two false opinion tasks; one before the administration of a cognitive task (either an executive task designed to deplete the availability of executive resources or one of two control tasks) and the other immediately after. Once again deception performance was operationalized via participant-receiver judgements of veracity (n = 798). The results indicated that while deception performance was impaired by the executive task, it was relatively unaffected by either of the control tasks. The fourth study presents a theoretical analysis assessing the appropriateness of standard by-judge and by-sender aggregating procedures commonly used in deception detection research. A series of Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that the aggregation of deception data can cause inflated Type 1 error rates and poor statistical power and that Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) may overcome these problems. Consequently, a series of GLMMs were used to re-analyze the data from Study 3. The results were consistent with previous analyses. Overall, the evidence reported in this thesis demonstrates that the demands of deceiving in false opinion tasks are sufficient to influence a person’s behaviours such that those with poor executive abilities tend to be worse liars than those with good executive abilities. Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorize University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only ………………………………………… ………………………………………… … 12/1/2016 …. Signature Witness Date The University recognizes that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award: ORIGINALITY STATEMENT I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Signed …………………………………………….............. Date ……………… 12/1/2016 ………………….............. iii -----------~---------------- --- --· " - COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 'I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known , subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of ::~::sisordz tion ~ . Date ... 15/ . 2../1.~. .. .... ..... ... .... .. ...... ................. .. .. ..... .. AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT 'I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the :::::ionto1~rrn~ · · ·· · · ······ · · · · ··· · ··· · ···· · · · ···· Date ... ... /S/ . 2 . /1.~.. .. ..... ... ... .... ................ ........ .. .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….. vi Thesis Overview………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….. viii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………... ix SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 Good Liars and Poor Liars……………………………………………………...… 1 SECTION 2: CRTICAL REVIEWS Chapter 2 The Influence of Sender Motivation……………………………………………… 14 Summary………………………………………………………………………….. 36 Chapter 3 The Influence of Personality Traits and Social Skills……………………………. 43 Summary………………………………………………………………………….. 55 Chapter 4 The Cognition of Deception……………………………………………………… 58 General Summary………………………………………………………………… 72 Thesis Aims………………………………………………………………………. 75 SECTION 3: LABORATORY STUDIES Chapter 5 Study 1 – Investigating the Executive Demands of Deception……………...…… 78 Method……………………………………………………………………………. 79 Results…………………………………………………………………………….. 87 Discussion………………………………………………………………………… 101 Chapter 6 Study 2 – Controlling Measurement Error: Reinvestigating the Executive Demands of Deception…………………………………………………………… 108 iv Method……………………………………………………………………………. 111 Results…………………………………………………………………………….. 121 Discussion………………………………………………………………………… 135 Chapter 7 Study 3 – Impairing Deception Performance by Depleting Working Memory….. 141 Method……………………………………………………………………………. 150 Results…………………………………………………………………………….. 156 Discussion………………………………………………………………………… 164 Chapter 8 Study 4 – Examining the use of Statistics in Deception Research……………...... 167 Reanalysis of Study 3 Data……………………………………………………….. 180 Conclusion…………………….…………………………………………………. 183 SECTION 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION Chapter 9 Good Liars and Poor Liars…….………………………………………………...... 186 Implications for Deception Theory and Research………………………………... 193 Practical Implications…………………………………………………………….. 197 Significance and Innovation……………………………………………………… 198 Limitations and Future Directions………………………………………………... 199 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………….. 202 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 203 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 220 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………. 220 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………. 223 Appendix C………………………………………………………………………. 224 Appendix D………………………………………………………………………. 228 Appendix E………………………………………………………………………. 231 Appendix F………………………………………………………………………. 233 Appendix G………………………………………………………………………. 235 v _____________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgements Writing a Doctoral thesis is a challenging task, one that I could not have completed without support from some key people. I would first like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Kristy Martire, whose intellectual contributions to this thesis were invaluable. Throughout the process, Kristy provided thoughtful comments regarding my research rationale and experimental methodology. She was never too busy to discuss my ideas or to meet with me when I was having difficulty resolving an issue. Kristy taught me to focus on the big picture and challenged me to engage with the theoretical and