Introduction
From the introduction section, the main theories that are being tested are inhibitory control which involves impulse control which involves controlling impulse on some desirable thing, and it also involves memory suppression which involves avoiding thoughts that are desirable. Through the inhibitory spillover effect, the psychological state of control will affect how impulse control will affect the performance of behavioral tasks. Deception, therefore, unlike telling the truth, requires someone to have more executive control, which is inhibitory control. When it comes to complex behaviors then, psychological inhibitory control will lead to increased performance during deception. Inhibitory control, therefore, is the difference between responding truthfully and deception, where truth is the default mode (Fenn et al., 2015). Those telling lies should also check on other factors, like looking at their behaviors and even keeping track of what they are saying. This means that telling lies takes a lot of time compared to telling the truth, as research has shown during person-to-person interactions.
Our current state of knowledge shows that imaging studies have shown that inhibition plays an important role when it comes to deception, and it shows that the prefrontal cortex is more active when telling lies than when telling the truth. The study of neuroimaging shows that deception will increase the activeness of the brain in fields that involve task switching, inhibitory control, and even inappropriate responses. Therefore, in conclusion, inhibitory control is needed more in deception compared to telling the truth. Research on the inhibitory spillover effect shows that when performing two tasks at the same time and they require inhibitory control, the access to the mechanisms of doing that leads to more concentration on the central activity. Carrying out experiments of deception in the real-world phenomenon to come up with hypotheses. Hypothesis one, the psychological state of a person can lead to them having inhibitory control over their actions during interviews or any other experiment. Hypothesis two, third parties lack the ability to know if they are deceiving if the liars are too good at inhibitory control.
Method section
Experiment one
To explain the hypotheses, experiments were carried out where participants were exposed to high or low physical inhibitory control by the people interviewing them, regulating the amount of water they were consuming. They were told to talk about hot buttons in an interview that was recorded, and some lied while others told the truth about the topic. Twenty-two university students participated as truth-tellers and liars and were told to drink water which was acting as a stimulus for urinary urgency. The deception tasks were about opinions on social issues like death, where interviewers formulated a questionnaire. Participants had accounts where videos were posted, and later, participants’ observers were to rate them out of 10. The results showed that those who are lying in the high inhibitory control have better control over their behaviors compared to participants who are not introduced to high inhibitory control.
Experiment two
In this experiment, third parties also viewed the videos and told if the participants were telling the truth or they were lying. It was found that telling if they were telling the truth or they were lying would be difficult because of the conditions of low or high, which they will be exposed to. The third parties were less accurate in trying to detect deception in the interviewees who were exposed to high or low conditions. Yes, the tasks or the experiment were appropriate to test the hypothesis. It is because we are able to know to what extent inhibitory control is going to affect the behavior of participants when it is high or low and how third parties can be deceived by liars. In experiment two, however, it was hard when a third party was involved in trying to know if the participants were telling the truth or they were lying.
Results
Experiment one
A comparison between those telling the truth and those lying was done and differences noted. It showed that liars are going to show large ISE compared to those telling the truth because lying is going to depend more on the inhibitory control. Interviewees behavior was also another factor where the third parties said that those lying were thinking too much compared to those telling the truth. They were grouped according to the convincing appearance, anxiety, confidence, and cognitive load. Another effect was how participants expressed themselves with how they responded, the number of words, and even words insight. Another effect was if the participants themselves have experienced those incidences that are being asked in the questionnaire.
Experiment two
The main effects were on the identification of truth and lies. They also looked at the discrimination of truth and lies in both high and low conditions. It was just the support of experiment one and it affected by the third party and how they viewed it.
Discussion
The results above predicted the hypotheses as the experiment one, interviewee showed high control when exposed to high inhibitory control which was urinary urgency. Those who were telling the truth however were never affected by inhibitory control as well as their behaviors. Experiment two was used to further explain experiment one and the hypotheses were answered. The theory that inhibition plays an important role when someone is deceiving or telling the truth is true. However, just like in the introduction deception requires a high level of inhibition control to master it.
References
Fenn, E., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Coons, J., Pineda, C., & Echon, R. (2015). The inhibitory spillover effect: Controlling the bladder makes better liars. Consciousness and cognition, 37, 112-122.
write