The Electrocortical Signature of Successful and Unsuccessful Deception in a Face-to-Face Social Interaction.
EEG
ERP
contingent negative variation
deception
lie
truth
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
18
06
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
9
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deceptive behavior, and the evaluation of others' behavior as truthful or deceptive, are crucial aspects of human social interaction. We report a study investigating two participants in a social interaction, performing a deception task. The first participant, the "informant," made true or false autobiographical statements. The second participant, the "detective," then classified these statements as truth or lie. Behavioral data showed that detectives performed slightly above chance and were better at correctly identifying true as compared with deceptive statements. This presumably reflects the "truth bias": the finding that individuals are more likely to classify others' statements as truthful than as deceptive - even when informed that a lie is as likely to be told as the truth. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded from the informant. Event-related potential (ERP) analysis revealed a smaller contingent negative variation (CNV) preceding "convincing" statements (statements classified as true by the detective) compared to "unconvincing" statements (statements classified as lie by the detective) - irrespective of whether the statements were actually truthful or deceptive. This finding suggests a distinct electrocortical signature of "successful" compared to "unsuccessful" deceptive statements. One possible explanation is that the pronounced CNV indicates the individuals' higher "cognitive load" when processing unconvincing statements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32765242
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00277
pmc: PMC7379373
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
277Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wagner-Altendorf, van der Lugt, Banfield, Meyer, Rohrbach, Heldmann and Münte.
Références
Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 1998 Jun;69(2):149-55
pubmed: 9755472
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Apr 14;8:213
pubmed: 24782741
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(3):214-34
pubmed: 16859438
Psychophysiology. 1992 Sep;29(5):504-22
pubmed: 1410180
J Neurosci. 2007 Feb 28;27(9):2272-82
pubmed: 17329424
Soc Neurosci. 2011;6(4):348-59
pubmed: 21225491
Cereb Cortex. 2014 Feb;24(2):465-78
pubmed: 23104682
Brain Res. 2013 Aug 21;1527:174-88
pubmed: 23831520
Neurosci Lett. 2010 Jul 19;479(1):1-5
pubmed: 20470861
Int J Psychophysiol. 2018 Oct;132(Pt B):184-202
pubmed: 29454641
J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21
pubmed: 15102499
Brain Res Bull. 2007 Jan 9;71(4):428-35
pubmed: 17208661
Psychiatry. 1969 Feb;32(1):88-106
pubmed: 5779090
Nature. 1964 Jul 25;203:380-4
pubmed: 14197376
Psychophysiology. 1991 Sep;28(5):531-47
pubmed: 1758929
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Sep;100(5):407-21
pubmed: 8893658
Int J Psychophysiol. 2003 Nov;50(3):247-55
pubmed: 14585493
Psychol Bull. 2017 Apr;143(4):428-453
pubmed: 28182460
Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1232-41
pubmed: 15050551
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Sep;18(9):441-4
pubmed: 25168448
Scand J Psychol. 2015 Jun;56(3):254-63
pubmed: 25707774
Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 Mar;95(3):395-405
pubmed: 25661698
Int J Psychophysiol. 2001 Dec;43(1):59-75
pubmed: 11742685
Neuroimage. 2002 Mar;15(3):727-32
pubmed: 11848716
Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 07;7:420
pubmed: 27092090
Psychophysiology. 2016 May;53(5):593-604
pubmed: 26787599
Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;134(4):477-92
pubmed: 18605814
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Jan 1;12(1):116-127
pubmed: 27798254
Front Psychol. 2013 Feb 01;4:14
pubmed: 23378840
Epilepsy Res. 2004 Feb;58(2-3):185-93
pubmed: 15120749
Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(7):878-901
pubmed: 14998703