COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. How to cite this thesis Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed: Date). Executive Functions and Deception: An Exploration of the Relationship between Cognitive Skills and the Ability to Deceive in University Students by Nevenka Tenji Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Johannesburg Supervisor: TL AUSTIN 30 January 2017 1 Declaration I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work and that all the sources used have been acknowledged. It has not been submitted for any other degree at another university or educational institution. ______________________________ Nevenka Tenji 30 January 2017 2 Abstract A number of cognitive functions are critical in the process of deception and some theorists postulate that deception is more cognitively demanding than being truthful. Furthermore, it has been theorised that enhanced cognitive functioning allows for better deceptive abilities. However, the possibility of a cognitive basis for proneness to deception has not been thoroughly investigated. This study addressed this gap in the literature and investigated whether people’s cognitive abilities are related to a tendency toward deception. A comparative study was conducted between two groups, comprised of individuals who are highly deceptive and those who are not prone to deception. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) was completed by voluntary participants, who were comprised of Psychology students from the University of Johannesburg. Of these, 26 participants were selected for further testing by a third party (the supervisor) based on their scores. 14 of these were high scorers and 12 were low scorers. The following cognitive tests were administered to the selected participants: the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Babcock Story Recall Test, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), Comprehension Test, Digit Span Test, Trail Making Test (TMT) and the Stroop Colour Word Test. The results of the cognitive tests of low deceivers and high deceivers were compared by applying the Mann-Whitney U Test, as well as the Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Test, in order to establish whether there is any significant difference between their cognitive abilities. The findings showed no significant relationship between cognitive ability and propensity for deception, as only two of the test conditions revealed significant findings (whereby low deceivers performed significantly better). Thus, although cognitive functions are a critical component of deception, an individual’s cognitive abilities would appear to have no influence on their tendency to be deceptive. Based on previous research in the field, alternate explanations could be that cognitive functioning are more closely associated with aptitude at deception rather than proneness to deception. Likewise, proneness to deception may find its fundamental origins from personality traits more so than cognitive abilities. 3 Acknowledgements A number of individuals were instrumental in the successful completion of this study, both academically and morally. I wish to thank everyone that contributed to this process. I would like to thank Dr. Austin for her input in this study. Thank you for the continuous support and guidance throughout the research process, which surpassed the expectations of a supervisor. I would further like to acknowledge the people who provided the moral support that enabled me to persevere and bring this dissertation to fruition. James, thank you for your patience and understanding. To my family, thank you for the encouragement and the unrelenting belief in me. 4 Table of Contents Declaration 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Table of Contents 5 List of Tables 10 Chapter 1: Introduction 12 Chapter 2: Literature Review 17 2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 The Evolution of Deception 17 2.3 Propensity for Deception 19 2.3.1 Gender 20 2.3.2 Age 20 2.3.3 Individual differences 21 2.3.3.1 Manipulativeness 21 2.3.3.2 Impression management 22 2.3.3.3 Sociability 22 2.3.3.4 Socialization and responsibility 23 2.3.3.5 Relationship quality 23 2.4 Prosocial Deception 24 2.5 Impression Management 25 2.5.1 Motives of impression management 27 5 2.5.2 Impression construction 29 2.5.3 Strategies of impression management 31 2.5.4 Distinguishing between impression management and self-deception 32 2.6 Self-deception 32 2.6.1 Types of self-deception 33 2.6.1.1 Biased information search 33 2.6.1.2 Biased interpretation 34 2.6.1.3 Misremembering 35 2.6.1.4 Rationalization 35 2.6.1.5 Convincing the self that the deception is the truth 36 2.6.2 Psychological and cognitive processes of self-deception 37 2.6.2.1 Implicit and explicit memory 38 2.6.2.2 Implicit and explicit attitudes 39 2.6.2.3 Automatic and controlled processes 39 2.7 Cognition of Deception 40 2.7.1 Cognitive load 41 2.7.2 Executive functions 42 2.8 Cognitive Theories of Deception 43 2.8.1 Four-Factor theory of deception 43 2.8.2 Interpersonal Deception Theory 43 2.8.3 Neural-cognitive theory of deception 44 2.8.4 Preoccupation Model of Secrecy 44 2.8.5 Activation-Decision-Construction Model 45 2.8.5.1 Activation 46 6 2.8.5.2 Decision 46 2.8.5.3 Construction 47 2.9 Cognitive Functions involved in Deception 48 2.9.1 Memory 49 2.9.2 Response inhibition 51 2.9.3 Attention 51 2.9.4 Planning and judgement 52 2.9.5 Verbal efficiency 52 2.10 Conclusion 52 Chapter 3: Research Methodology 54 3.1 Introduction 54 3.2 Research Design 54 3.3 Participants and Sampling 54 3.4 Measuring Instruments 55 3.4.1 Biographical Questionnaire 55 3.4.2 Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) 55 3.4.3 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) 56 3.4.4 Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) 58 3.4.5 Babcock Story Recall Test 61 3.4.6 Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) 62 3.4.7 Comprehension Test 63 3.4.8 Digit Span Test 65 3.4.9 Trail Making Test (TMT) 66 7 3.4.10 Stroop Colour Word Test 67 3.5 Procedure 69 3.6 Data Analysis 69 3.7 Ethical Considerations 70 Chapter 4: Results 71 4.1 Introduction 71 4.2 Descriptive Statistics 71 4.2.1 Age 72 4.2.2 Gender 73 4.2.3 Race 74 4.3 Inferential Statistics 75 4.3.1 Mann-Whitney Test 75 4.3.2 Chi-Square 79 4.4 Conclusion 97 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 98 5.1 Introduction 98 5.2 Demographic Frequency 98 5.3 Trends 99 5.4 Explanation 100 5.5 Theoretical and Practical Implications 102 5.6 Limitations 103 5.7 Concluding Remarks 104 8 References 105 Appendix Appendix A: Biographical Questionnaire 140 Appendix B: Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) 141 9 Tables Chapter 4: Results Table 1: Age of participants Table 2: Gender of participants Table 3: Race of participants Table 4: Mann-Whitney Test ranks results Table 5: Summary of findings of the Mann-Whitney Test Table 6: Results on the RAVLT Immediate Recall Trial Table 7: Calculation of Chi-Square Test for the RAVLT Immediate Recall Phase Table 8: Results on the RAVLT T1-T5 Table 9: Calculation of Chi-Square Test on the RAVLT T1-T5 Table 10: Results on the RAVLT Distractor Trial Table 11: Calculation of Chi-Square on the RAVLT Distractor Trial Table 12: Results on the RAVLT Trial 6 Table 13: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RAVLT Trial 6 Table 14: Results on the RAVLT Delayed Recall Trial Table 15: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RAVLT Delayed Recall Trial Table 16: Results on the RAVLT Repetition Condition Table 17: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RAVLT Repetition Condition Table 18: Results on the Babcock Immediate Recall Trial Table 19: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the Babcock Immediate Recall Trial Table 20: Results on the Babcock Delayed Recall Trial Table 21: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the Babcock Delayed Recall Trial 10 Table 22: Results on the RCFT Copy Phase Table 23: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RCFT Copy Phase Table 24: Results on the RCFT Immediate Recall Phase Table 25: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RCFT Immediate Recall Phase Table 26: Results on the RCFT Delayed Recall Phase Table 27: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the RCFT Delayed Recall Phase Table 28: Results on the Stroop Test Table 29: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the Stroop Test Table 30: Results on the Digits Forward Test Table 31: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the Digits Forward Test Table 32: Results on the Digits Backwards Test Table 33: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the Digits Backwards Test Table 34: Results on the TMT – Part A Table 35: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the TMT – Part A Table 36: Results on the TMT – Part B Table 37: Calculation of the Chi-Square Test on the TMT – Part B Table 38: Results on the Comprehension Test