Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Got Theory? Multitasking, Cognitive Load, and Deception

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication

Abstract

In this chapter, Driskell and Driskell examine research on the cognitive load approach to lie detection, and review the foundational theories of multitasking and cognitive load that underlie this approach. Based on this analysis, specific theoretically based propositions are derived that elaborate the cognitive load approach to lie detection and offer greater specificity in applying cognitive load theories. The propositions presented suggest further avenues for research on cognitive load and lie detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abe, N. (2011). How the brain shapes deception: An integrated review of the literature. The Neuroscientist,17, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410393359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1983). Working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,302, 311–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1995). Working memory. In G. A. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosceinces (pp. 755–764). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin,91, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.91.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46, 610–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., & Carr, T. H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beilock, S. L., Wierenga, S. A., & Carr, T. H. (2002). Expertise, attention, and memory in sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task performance and episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 1211–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson, K., & Becic, E. (2005). Training effects on dual-task performance: Are there age-related differences in plasticity of attentional control? Psychology and Aging,20, 695–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A., Braun, C. C., & Morgan, B. B. (1997). Team workload: Its meaning and measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brookings, J. B. (1990). A confirmatory factor analytic study of time-sharing performance and cognitive abilities. Intelligence,14, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review,62, 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, K. J. (1948). Theory of the human operator in control systems: II. Man as an element in a control system. British Journal of Psychology,38, 142–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin,129, 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Tang, J. (1994). Social anxiety and social judgment: The example of detecting deception. Journal of Research in Personality,28, 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review,70, 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., Johnson, C., Hughes, S., & Batchelor, C. (1992). Development of quantitative specifications for simulating the stress environment (Report No. AL-TR-1991- 0109). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Armstrong Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1996). Stress and human performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, S. C., Morrin, K. A., & Joslyn, S. (2003). Measuring multi-tasking ability. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. (2007). Attention goes home: Support for aging adults. In A. F. Kramer, D. A. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 157–169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaley, A., Cooney, J. W., Rissman, J., & D’Esposito, M. (2005). Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature Neuroscience,8, 1298–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. A., & Szalma, J. L. (Eds.). (2012). Performance under stress. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of motor actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology,87, 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heggestad, E. D., Carpenter, S., O’Shea, W. G., DeLosh, D. L., & Clegg, B. A. (2002). Timesharing: Its future implications for the Navy. Millington, TN: Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huey, M. B., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). Workload transition: Implication for individual and team performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. H., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1997). Vigilant and hypervigilant decision making. The Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1975). Effort, recognition and recall in auditory attention. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. The American Psychologist,64, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,47, 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keinan, G., & Friedland, N. (1996). Training effective performance under stress: Queries, dilemmas, and possible solutions. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 257–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (1986). Rapid decision making on the fireground. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30th Annual Meeting (Vol. 1, pp. 576–580). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for attentional control in dual task settings: A comparison of young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,1, 50–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science,19, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,14, 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Kliegl, R., & Krampe, R. T. (1996). Sequential and coordinative processing dynamics in figural transformations across the life span. Cognition, 59, 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcleod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 651–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review,104, 3–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N. (1967). Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica,27, 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review,86, 214–255. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.86.3.214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology,44, 193–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U., & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually significant events. Cognitive Psychology,7, 480–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6242412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7972591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poposki, E. M., Oswald, F. L., & Chen, H. T. (2009). Neuroticism negatively affects multitasking performance through state anxiety (Technical Report for Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology [NPRST-TN-09-3]). Millington, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riby, L. M., Perfect, T. J., & Stollery, B. T. (2004). The effects of age and task domain on dual task performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,16, 863–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11248938.

  • Ruthruff, E., Van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research,70, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review,115, 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,84, 1–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shallice, T., Mcleod, P., & Lewis, K. (1985). Isolating cognitive modules with the dual-task paradigm: Are speech perception and production separate processes? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37, 507–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review,84, 127–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, R. N., Cauraugh, J. H., Murphey, M., Chen, D., & Lidor, R. (1991). Attentional control, distractors, and motor performance. Human Performance,4, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 202–213. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5341896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology,14, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Brinke, L., Porter, S., & Baker, A. (2012). Darwin the detective: Observable facial muscle contractions revel emotional high-stakes lies. Evolution and Human Behavior,33, 411–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhaeghen, P., Steitz, D. W., Sliwinski, M. J., & Cerella, J. (2003). Aging and dual-task performance: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging,18, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.3.443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2015). A cognitive approach to lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new approaches (pp. 205–229). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 261–283. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12061619.

  • Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,36, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology,22, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2008). A cognitive load approach to lie detection. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling,5, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Mann, S. (2004). Good liars: Our invited article in Review of Policy Research that never got published (May 2005), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2011). Outsmarting the liars: Toward a cognitive lie detection approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science,20, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410391245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology,15, 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior,32, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2010). “Look into my eyes”: Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime & Law,16, 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160902740633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. T. (1967). Single channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologica,27, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 3–34). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,3, 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2005). Multiple resource time sharing models. In N. A. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H. Hendrick (Eds.), Human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 40.1–40.7). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors,50, 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2016). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,30, 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. R. T., Berry, C. J., & Bird, G. (2012). “You can’t kid a kidder”: Association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,6, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2005). Mental workload. In N. A. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H. Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods, Ch. 39. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Maxima Corporation, Orlando, FL, USA

    Tripp Driskell & James E. Driskell

Authors
  1. Tripp Driskell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Driskell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Driskell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Tony Docan-Morgan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Driskell, T., Driskell, J.E. (2019). Got Theory? Multitasking, Cognitive Load, and Deception. In: Docan-Morgan, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Deceptive Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96334-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation