To err is human but not deceptive.

This study addresses a poorly understood but important question concerning the cognition of deception: How much more is there to lying than to responding incorrectly, the latter capturing how researchers have occasionally operationalized deception? A recent social-cognitive account of lying – Activa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Memory & Cognition Vol. 50; no. 1; pp. 232 - 245
Main Authors: Walczyk, Jeffrey J., Cockrell, Natalie F.
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Jan2022
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=154714315&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 154714315
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0090502X
        MEG
      jtl: Memory & Cognition
      issn: 0090502X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2022
      vid: 50
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        154714315
        10.3758/s13421-021-01197-8
      ppf: 232
      ppct: 13
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 508KB
      tig:
        atl: To err is human but not deceptive.
      aug:
        au:
          Walczyk, Jeffrey J.
          Cockrell, Natalie F.
        affil: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, P.O. Box 10048, 71272, Ruston, LA, USA
      su:
        Disclosure
        Cognition
        Psychology
        Interpersonal relations
        Deception
        Thought & thinking
        Medical protocols
        Human error
        Theory
        Reaction time
        Intention
      sug:
        subj:
          Disclosure
          Cognition
          Psychology
          Interpersonal relations
          Deception
          Thought & thinking
          Medical protocols
          Human error
          Theory
          Reaction time
          Intention
      keyword:
        Cognition of deception
        Intentional erring
        Proactive interference
        Theory of mind
        Cognition of deception
        Intentional erring
        Proactive interference
        Theory of mind
      ab: This study addresses a poorly understood but important question concerning the cognition of deception: How much more is there to lying than to responding incorrectly, the latter capturing how researchers have occasionally operationalized deception? A recent social-cognitive account of lying – Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT) – asserts a qualitative difference between the two – for instance, that deception involves Theory of Mind inferences and more proactive interference. To test these notions within-subjects, participants answered closed-ended and open-ended questions probing general truths honestly, deceptively, or with intentional errors. Response time and noncompliance with instructions were the dependent measures. Deceptive responding generally elicited the longest response times and the lowest instruction compliance, followed by intentional erring, supporting the theory. Although not the primary focus, response inhibition due to implausible deception was demonstrated for the first time.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N