↓ Skip to main content

Advancing Lie Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load on Liars: A Review of Relevant Theories and Techniques Guided by Lessons from Polygraph-Based Approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advancing Lie Detection by Inducing Cognitive Load on Liars: A Review of Relevant Theories and Techniques Guided by Lessons from Polygraph-Based Approaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Frank P. Igou, Alexa P. Dixon, Talar Tcholakian

Abstract

This article critically reviews techniques and theories relevant to the emerging field of "lie detection by inducing cognitive load selectively on liars." To help these techniques benefit from past mistakes, we start with a summary of the polygraph-based Controlled Question Technique (CQT) and the major criticisms of it made by the National Research Council (2003), including that it not based on a validated theory and administration procedures have not been standardized. Lessons from the more successful Guilty Knowledge Test are also considered. The critical review that follows starts with the presentation of models and theories offering insights for cognitive lie detection that can undergird theoretically load-inducing approaches. This is followed by evaluation of specific research-based, load-inducing proposals, especially for their susceptibility to rehearsal and other countermeasures. To help organize these proposals and suggest new direction for innovation and refinement, a theoretical taxonomy is presented based on the type of cognitive load induced in examinees (intrinsic or extraneous) and how open-ended the responses to test items are. Finally, four recommendations are proffered that can help researchers and practitioners to avert the corresponding mistakes with the CQT and yield new, valid cognitive lie detection technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 152 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 20%
Student > Bachelor 28 17%
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 86 53%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Computer Science 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Linguistics 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 31 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2021.
All research outputs
#391,642
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#807
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,747
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#45
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.