Deception Group Research Articles

Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions

In this study, we propose an approach to detect deception during investigative interviews by integrating response latency and error analysis with the unexpected question technique. Sixty participants were assigned to an honest (n = 30) or deceptive group (n = 30). The deceptive group was instructed to memorize the false biographical details of a fictitious identity. Throughout the interviews, participants were presented with a randomized sequence of control, expected, and unexpected open-ended questions about identity. Responses were audio recorded for detailed examination. Our findings indicate that deceptive participants showed markedly longer latencies and higher error rates when answering expected (requiring deception) and unexpected questions (for which premeditated deception was not possible). Longer response latencies were also observed in participants attempting deception when answering control questions (which necessitated truthful answers). Moreover, a within-subject analysis highlighted that responding to unexpected questions significantly impaired individuals’ performance compared to answering control and expected questions. Leveraging machine-learning algorithms, our approach attained a classification accuracy of 98% in distinguishing deceptive and honest participants. Additionally, a classification analysis on single response levels was conducted. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of merging response latency metrics and error rates with unexpected questioning as a robust method for identity deception detection in investigative interviews. We also discuss significant implications for enhancing interview strategies.

Efficacy of Forced Choice Testing in Detecting a Secret Cell Hiding Within a Group

The purpose of this project was to test whether a previously validated method of detecting deception known as forced choice testing would be effective at finding a “cell” of deceptive individuals hiding in a larger group. 64 men and women enrolled in a State Trooper Academy were the participants of this study; 57 participants were randomized to the truthful group and 7 were randomized to the deceptive group. Each participant was given an FCT by a member of the cadre who was blind to the status of the participants. The distribution of responses deviated significantly below the binomial prediction for 14 individuals; a cross-link analysis indicated 7 of these 14 did not select each other. These were the members of the deceptive group. Consistent with the hypothesis underpinning traditional FCT methods, deceptive individuals motivated to hide what they knew (i.e., the identity of the “cell” of deceptive individuals) avoided picking any of the other deceptive participants who appeared on the FCT. This avoidance behavior resulted in fewer number of “selections” than predicted by the binomial calculations. These data suggest it may be fruitful to explore how well the principles of FCT can be used in law enforcement or national security to detect potentially dangerous “cells” of individuals hiding within larger groups.

Lightweight authentication scheme for massive MIMO on Internet of Things connectivity

Massive MIMO is an essential technology in developing 5G networks and a concept that may be applied to other wireless systems. However, the advantages of adopting massive MIMO for broadband communication are well-established. Recently researcher has been devoted to building communication systems sustaining high communication rates with security. While massive MIMO for Internet-of-Things (IoT) connectivity is still a developing issue, IoT connectivity has requirements and limitations that differ significantly from broadband connections. Although IoT makes people’s lives easier by allowing physical devices to flow through, the interaction of open wireless channels such as Bluetooth, ZigBee, LoRa, Narrowband-Internet of Things (NBIoT), and WiFi, has produced various security and privacy difficulties. Identity authentication is one of the effective solutions for addressing the Internet of Things security and privacy concerns. The typical point-to-point authentication technique ignores the internet of things’ massive number of nodes and limited node resources. Group authentication is an authentication method that simultaneously confirms the identity of a group of members, offering a novel approach to identity identification for the internet of things nodes. However, existing group authentication systems appropriate for the internet of things scenarios pose security issues. They cannot withstand malicious attacks such as forging and replay and cannot prevent group managers from fooling group members. Most existing group authentication schemes are computationally expensive and cannot be applied to resource-constrained IoT scenarios. At the same time, existing systems based on secret-sharing technology cannot resist forgery attacks and replay attacks. The attacker can forge a legal token by modifying the Lagrangian coefficient in the authentication token to pass the group authentication. This work employs verifiable secret sharing technology to create a lightweight verifiable group authentication method (L-IoT-GS) suitable for Internet of Things situations to resist group managers’ deceptive group behavior. Nodes in the Internet of Things scenario can frequently join and leave the network. Because of this, this article proposes a critical update link based on a verified group authentication system for updating group Member rights. According to security analysis, the suggested L-IoT-GS scheme meets accuracy and confidentiality requirements and can withstand malicious attacks such as replay, forgery, and impersonation. Furthermore, performance study and experimental simulation reveal that the L-IoT-GS technique minimizes group members’ computing costs compared to existing standard IoT group authentication schemes.

Reduction in caffeine withdrawal after open-label decaffeinated coffee.

Withdrawal from addictive drugs can be reduced by administering placebo deceptively, but in the clinic it is unethical to deceive the patient. Open-label placebo effects have been observed across a range of psychophysiological phenomena, and may also apply to drug withdrawal. 24-hour abstinent heavy coffee drinkers (N = 61) rated their caffeine withdrawal symptoms before being allocated to one of three groups. The Deceptive group was given decaffeinated coffee (decaf) and told it was caffeinated, the Open-Label group given decaf and told it was decaf and the Control group given water and told it was water. After 45 min, caffeine withdrawal was measured again. All participants rated their expectancies of withdrawal reduction from caffeinated coffee, decaf and water prior to being randomised and the end of the study. There was a significant 9.5-point reduction in caffeine withdrawal in the Open-Label group (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.7, 14.3; p = 0.002), which was 8.6 points less than the Deceptive group (95%CI: 0.4, 16.8; p = 0.014) but 8.9 points greater than the Control group (95%CI: 0.6, 17.2; p = 0.012). Pre-randomisation, participants expected caffeinated coffee to reduce their withdrawal symptoms the most, followed by water and decaf, Pre-randomisation expectancy of withdrawal was only associated with amount of withdrawal reduction in the Deceptive group. It appears as if open-label placebo caffeine (i.e. decaf) can reduce caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even when people do not hold a conscious expectancy it will do so. There may be ways to integrate open-label placebo procedures into clinical interventions for drug dependence without violating informed consent.

Deception in simulation-based education: a randomised controlled trial of the effect of deliberate deception on the performance of anaesthesia trainees.

The use of deliberate deception in simulation allows for a level of realism that is not normally feasible. However, the use of deception is controversial, and carries the risk of psychological harm to learners. There are currently no quantitative data on the effect of deception on learner performance, making it difficult to judge its usefulness. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of deception on learners' performance during a life-threatening scenario. In this simulation study, second-year anaesthesia residents were randomly allocated into two groups: the non-deception group was told that the participating consultant was acting a part, while the deception group was told that the consultant was a subject in the study. Learners then participated in a simulated crisis that presented them with situational opportunities to challenge the consultant regarding clearly wrong decisions. Two independent raters scored the performances using the modified advocacy-inquiry scale. Forty-four participants were analysed. The median (IQR [range]) highest scoring modified advocacy-inquiry scale was 5.0 (4.5-5.1 [4.0-5.5]) for the non-deception group and 4.0 (3.0-4.0 [2.5-5.0]) for the deception group, (p < 0.001), and the median total number of challenges per participant was 26.8 (21.0-31.1 [16.5-35.5]) and 18.0 (14.3-23.3 [7.0-33.0]), respectively (p = 0.001). Trainees exposed to deliberate deception, who thought that the consultant anaesthetist was a subject, had a less-effective best challenge, likely mimicking real-life behaviour. Deliberate deception appears to modify behaviour, particularly relating to communication involving hierarchical relationships. This technique may improve authenticity, especially with a steep power gradient, and so has demonstrable value which must be balanced against the ethical considerations.

Who did I lie to that day? Deception impairs memory in daily life.

Research has demonstrated that deceptive responses can undermine item and source memories. However, previous studies have often randomly assigned participants to an honest or deception group and asked them to respond in specific ways in an interview, rather than providing them a choice of what response to give. Moreover, little attention has been given to destination memory in previous research. Using a daily life paradigm, we investigated the effects of deception on memory. After completing a mock shopping task, participants were told that someone would ask them questions about their shopping lists. The participants voluntarily chose to tell the truth or lie in the interview and were encouraged to respond as they would in their daily lives. An item memory test, source memory test and destination memory test were given 48h after the interview. Source and destination memories but not item memories were impaired for participants who chose to lie. Specifically, liars forgot the things about which they lied and mistakenly believed that they lied about many things that they did not, and they also did not remember to whom they lied. We conclude that deception can disrupt memory in daily life.

A randomized, controlled, equivalence study of authorized versus non-authorized deception in a model of pain following third molar extraction

Background and rationale When deception is used, a conflict ensues between the need to use it to answer a research question scientifically whilst protecting the participants’ autonomy simultaneously. Authorized deception (where participants are told they will be deceived) is a method that has been proposed to address the traditional “non-authorized” deception. Our study evaluated authorized versus non-authorized deception in a pain model of third molar extraction. Methods Adult patients requiring surgery for third molar extraction were enrolled after consent and randomized to either the authorized or “non-authorized” deception group. Within each group, they were further randomized to receiving either an “expensive” or an “inexpensive” painkiller. All participants actually received the same painkiller. The primary outcome measure was pain, while the proportion of patients taking rescue medication was the secondary outcome measure. All patients were debriefed at study completion. Results The median peak pain score was not significantly different between the groups. A little over 21% patients in the authorized deception group relative to 32.4% patients in the non-authorized group took rescue medication (p = 0.09). In the non-authorized deception group, 30% patients in the “inexpensive” group relative to 34.5% patients in the “expensive” group took rescue medication (p &gt; 0.05). In the authorized deception group, 12.5% patients who received “expensive” relative to 30.4% who received the “inexpensive” painkiller took rescue medication (p = 0.04). Conclusions While our study showed equivalence of the two deception modalities, authorized deception may not be truly sterile.

Functional Connectivity Pattern Analysis Underlying Neural Oscillation Synchronization during Deception.

To characterize system cognitive processes during deception, event-related coherence was computed to investigate the functional connectivity among brain regions underlying neural oscillation synchronization. In this study, 15 participants were randomly assigned to honesty or deception groups and were instructed to tell the truth or lie when facing certain stimuli. Meanwhile, event-related potential signals were recorded using a 64-channel electroencephalography cap. Event-related coherence was computed separately in four frequency bands (delta (1-3.5 Hz), theta (4-7 Hz), alpha (8-13 Hz), and beta (14-30 HZ)) for the long-range intrahemispheric electrode pairs (F3P3, F4P4, F3T7, F4T8, F3O1, and F4O2). The results indicated that deceptive responses elicited greater connectivities in the frontoparietal and frontotemporal networks than in the frontooccipital network. Furthermore, the deception group displayed lower values of coherence in the frontoparietal electrode pairs in the alpha and beta bands than the honesty group. In particular, increased coherence in the delta and theta bands on specific left frontoparietal electrode pairs was observed. Additionally, the deception group exhibited higher values of coherence in the delta band and lower values of coherence in the beta band on the frontotemporal electrode pairs than did the honesty group. These data indicated that the active cognitive processes during deception include changes in ensemble activities between the frontal and parietal/temporal regions.

Lie Detection Using fNIRS Monitoring of Inhibition-Related Brain Regions Discriminates Infrequent but not Frequent Liars

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to test whether monitoring inhibition-related brain regions is a feasible method for detecting both infrequent liars and frequent liars. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups: the deceptive group (liars) and the non-deceptive group (ND group, innocents). All the participants were required to undergo a simulated interrogation by a computer. The participants from the deceptive group were instructed to tell a mix of lies and truths and those of the ND group were instructed always to tell the truth. Based on the number of deceptions, the participants of the deceptive group were further divided into a infrequently deceptive group (IFD group, infrequent liars) and a frequently deceptive group (FD group, frequent liars). The infrequent liars exhibited greater neural activities than the frequent liars and the innocents in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG) when performing the deception detection tasks. While performing deception detection tasks, infrequent liars showed significantly greater neural activation in the left MFG than the baseline, but frequent liars and innocents did not exhibit this pattern of neural activation in any area of inhibition-related brain regions. The results of individual analysis showed an acceptable accuracy of detecting infrequent liars, but an unacceptable accuracy of detecting frequent liars. These results suggest that using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions is feasible for detecting infrequent liars, for whom deception may be more effortful and therefore more physiologically marked, but not frequent liars.

Improvements in Cycling Time Trial Performance Are Not Sustained Following the Acute Provision of Challenging and Deceptive Feedback.

The provision of performance-related feedback during exercise is acknowledged as an influential external cue used to inform pacing decisions. The provision of this feedback in a challenging or deceptive context allows research to explore how feedback can be used to improve performance and influence perceptual responses. However, the effects of deception on both acute and residual responses have yet to be explored, despite potential application for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of challenging and deceptive feedback on perceptual responses and performance in self-paced cycling time trials (TT) and explored whether changes in performance are sustained in a subsequent TT following the disclosure of the deception. Seventeen trained male cyclists were assigned to either an accurate or deceptive feedback group and performed four 16.1 km cycling TTs; (1 and 2) ride-alone baseline TTs where a fastest baseline (FBL) performance was identified, (3) a TT against a virtual avatar representing 102% of their FBL performance (PACER), and (4) a subsequent ride-alone TT (SUB). The deception group, however, were initially informed that the avatar accurately represented their FBL, but prior to SUB were correctly informed of the nature of the avatar. Affect, self-efficacy and RPE were measured every quartile. Both groups performed PACER faster than FBL and SUB (p < 0.05) and experienced lower affect (p = 0.016), lower self-efficacy (p = 0.011), and higher RPE (p < 0.001) in PACER than FBL. No significant differences were found between FBL and SUB for any variable. The presence of the pacer rather than the manipulation of performance beliefs acutely facilitates TT performance and perceptual responses. Revealing that athletes' performance beliefs were falsely negative due to deceptive feedback provision has no effect on subsequent perceptions or performance. A single experiential exposure may not be sufficient to produce meaningful changes in the performance beliefs of trained individuals beyond the acute setting.

Deception has no acute or residual effect on cycling time trial performance but negatively effects perceptual responses.

Feedback deception is used to explore the importance of expectations on pacing strategy and performance in self-paced exercise. The deception of feedback from a previous performance explores the importance of experience knowledge on exercise behaviour. This study aimed to explore the acute and residual effects of the deception of previous performance speed on perceptual responses and performance in cycling time trials. A parallel-group design. Twenty cyclists were assigned to a control or deception group and performed 16.1km time trials. Following a ride-alone baseline time trial (FBL), participants performed against a virtual avatar representing their FBL performance (PACER), then completed a subsequent ride-alone time trial (SUB). The avatar in the deception group, however, was unknowingly set 2% faster than their FBL. Both groups performed faster in PACER than FBL and SUB (p<0.05), but SUB was not significantly different to FBL. Affect was more negative and Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were higher in PACER than FBL in the deception group (p<0.05). The presence of a visual pacer acutely facilitated time trial performance, but deceptive feedback had no additional effect on performance. The deception group, however, experienced more negative affect and higher RPE in PACER, whereas these responses were absent in the control group. The performance improvement was not sustained in SUB, suggesting no residual performance effects occurred.

Deception Has No Residual Effect On Perceptual Responses Or Time Trial Performance

PURPOSE: Previous experience is widely accepted as a fundamental determinant of pacing strategies during exercise. The deception of feedback and performance knowledge is a current method used to investigate the influence of beliefs and expectations on exercise regulation. Research examining the deception of previous performance knowledge, however, has been limited. Furthermore, the residual effects of deception have also been seldom explored. This study aimed to investigate the residual effects of previous performance deception on perceptual responses and performance in 16.1 km self-paced cycling time trials (TT). METHODS: Twenty trained male cyclists were randomly assigned to control (CON) or deception (DEC) groups and completed 16.1 km cycling TT using a CompuTrainer cycle ergometer. In a PACER trial, the cyclists’ fastest baseline performance (FBL) was projected on-screen as a visual avatar. The CON group received accurate feedback but the avatar was unknowingly set 2% faster in the DEC group. A final subsequent ride-alone TT (SUB) was then performed. Power output, affect, RPE, self-efficacy, heart rate and respiratory gases were measured throughout each TT. RESULTS: Performance time was significantly faster in PACER than FBL (MD = -21.0 s, P = 0.039) but similar between FBL and SUB (MD = -9.1 s, P = 0.13) and no significant group x trial interaction was found (P > 0.05). From FBL to PACER, the DEC group experienced more negative affect, higher RPE and lower self-efficacy (P < 0.001) but no differences were found between FBL and SUB (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The deception of previous performance knowledge has no residual effect on perceptual responses or performance in 16.1 km self-paced cycling TT. Acute improvements in performance are elicited during the deceptive exposure but are accompanied by negative perceptual responses, and these effects are not manifest in subsequent exercise.

Deception awareness improves P300-based deception detection in concealed information tests

We asked if increased awareness of deception enhanced P300-based detection of concealed information with two groups: 1) Control subjects saw a randomized series of either rare probes (subject home towns), frequent irrelevants (other towns), and rare targets, which are irrelevant stimuli but requiring Button 1 responses. Probes and non-target irrelevants required Button 2 responses. Controls were told to be sure they performed target/non-target discrimination correctly, and were so reminded throughout the run. 2) Deception subjects received an identical stimulus series and response instructions, but were also alerted about their deception (pressing a non-recognition button to probes) before and throughout the run. The deception group had significantly greater differences between probe and irrelevant P300s than controls, as well as significantly greater individual detections (10/10) than did controls (5/10), suggesting that the deception awareness manipulation enhances test sensitivity.

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

The ethics of placebo research have been of paramount concern since the discovery of the phenomenon. To address these ethical concerns, Miller and colleagues (PLoS Med 2005 Sep;2(9):e262, 0853–0859) propose an alternate approach to placebo research, called “authorized deception”, in which participants are alerted of the use of deception in the research prior to study enrollment and thus knowingly permit its use if they decide to participate. The present study sought to investigate the authorized deception methodology in experimentally induced placebo analgesia. The participants were randomly assigned to an authorized deception or non-authorized deception group. A commonly used protocol was employed wherein heat pain stimulation was surreptitiously lowered following the application of a placebo cream during a series of conditioning trials and the magnitude of the placebo effect was subsequently assessed in test trials for which the stimulus intensity was the same for both the placebo and control creams. Authorized deception did not have any negative impact on the magnitude of the placebo effect, recruitment and retention of participants, nor did it result in any significant psychological harm. The majority of participants who received this form of consent preferred it to the traditional approach in which the participants are not alerted to the presence of deception. These findings suggest that the use of authorized deception is a viable and ethically preferable alternative consent process for laboratory-based studies on placebo analgesia. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of authorized deception in clinical trials and other placebo research within a clinical setting.