Practice effects, workload, and reaction time in deception.

Cognitive theorists argue that deception may involve attentional capture, working memory load, or perceived incongruity with memory, whereas psychophysiologists argue for stimulus salience, arousal, and emotion. This article presents a comprehensive model of deception and assesses the effect of practice on deceptive responding. A three-session longitudinal study examined the effect of practice on reaction time (RT) in relation to deception and response congruity.

Reaction time of motor responses in two-stimulus paradigms involving deception and congruity with varying levels of difficulty.

Deception research has focused on identifying peripheral nervous system markers while ignoring cognitive mechanisms underlying those markers. Cognitive theorists argue that the process of deception may involve such constructs as attentional capture, working memory load, or perceived incongruity with memory, while psychophysiologists argue for stimulus salience, arousal, and emotion. Three studies were conducted to assess reaction time (RT) in relation to deception, response congruity, and preparedness to deceive.