Cognitive Load and Deceptive Speech in Anti-Corruption Interrogations: An Activation Decision Construction Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61667/bb7mv332Keywords:
Deceptive speech, Cognitive load, Activation-Decision-Construction Model (ADCM), Fundamental frequency, InterrogationAbstract
Detecting deception in institutional interrogations remains a significant challenge for law enforcement and investigative agencies. This study investigates the relationship between cognitive load and deceptive speech in anti-corruption interrogations through a modified Activation–Decision–Construction Model (ADCM) that incorporates iterative cognitive processing. The modified ADCM posits that truth-telling and deception engage qualitatively distinct cognitive pathways: Direct Truth Path (rapid veridical information access), Strategic Lie Path (deliberate false-narrative construction), and Iterative Lie-Construction Path (multiple cycles of cognitive revision and backtracking). We hypothesized that these pathways would be distinguishable through acoustic-linguistic markers reflecting differential cognitive load. The study analyzed 102 question-answer segments from 15 speakers across 12 authentic anti-corruption interrogations in Indonesian. For each segment, we measured normalized fundamental frequency (F0), pause frequency and duration, reaction time (RT), and assigned ADCM-phase classifications via temporal coding. Segments were independently verified as Likely Truthful, Likely Deceptive, or Ambiguous based on corroborating evidence obtained during investigations. Results demonstrate that Likely Deceptive segments exhibited significantly elevated F0 (mean z-score +0.52 vs. –0.38 for truthful; d = 0.90), increased pause frequency (3.8 vs. 1.5 pauses; t = 8.34, p < .001), prolonged total pause duration (2.1 vs. 0.6 seconds; t = 9.12, p < .001), and extended RT (2.8 vs. 1.2 seconds; t = 7.89, p < .001). The Iterative Lie-Construction Path predominated in deceptive segments (47%), while the Direct Truth Path dominated truthful segments (76%). These findings provide strong empirical support for the modified ADCM and demonstrate that cognitive load in deceptive speech is reliably indexed through convergent acoustic-linguistic markers. The results have implications for evidence-based interrogation practice and deception detection in institutional settings
References
Bird, L. A. (2018). The cognitive load of lies. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania].
Demenko, G. (2008). Voice stress extraction. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2008 Conference. International Speech Communication Association.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.
El-Zawawy, A. M. (2017). Towards a new linguistic model for detecting political lies. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 183–202.
El-Zawawy, A. M. (2023). Revisiting deception in Breonna Taylor’s case: A cognitive acoustic approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52, 1409–1437.
El‑Zawawy, A. M. (2023). Revisiting deception in Breonna Taylor’s case: A cognitive‑acoustic approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52, 1409–1437.
Fitzpatrick, E., Bachenko, J., & Fornaciari, T. (2015). Automatic detection of verbal deception. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 8(3), 1–
Gaines, P., & Lowrey‑Kinberg, B. (2020). False confessors: The language of false confession in police interrogation. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 127–143). Routledge.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. Academic Press.
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676.
Hauch, V., Blandón‑Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta‑analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342.
Haworth, K. (2020). Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. In M. Coulthard et al. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 144–158). Routledge.
Kirchhübel, C., & Howard, D. M. (2011). Acoustic correlates of speech when under stress: Research, methods and future directions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1), 75–98.
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63).
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44.
Markowitz, D. M., Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Ely, M. (2023). Contextual considerations for deception production and detection in forensic interviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1134052.
Muñoz García, A., Gil Gómez de Liaño, B., & Pascual Ezama, D. (2023). The role of cognition in dishonest behavior. Brain Sciences, 13(3), 394.
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351–371.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419–430.
Picornell, I. (2013). Analysing deception in written witness statements. Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence, 1(1), 41–50.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 57–75.
Reynolds, E., & Rendle‑Short, J. (2011). Cues to deception in context: Response latency/gaps in denials and blame shifting. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 431–449.
Schafer, J., Ekici, N., Young, D., Maldonado, K., & Karlins, M. (2023). Verbal indicators of deception. Journal of Forensic Science & Criminal Investigation, 17(1), 1–8.
Scherer, K. R., Feldstein, S., Bond, R. N., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Vocal cues to deception: A comparative channel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(4), 409–425.
Sporer, S. L. (2016). Deception and cognitive load: Expanding our horizon with a working memory model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 420.
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta‑analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 421–446.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(2), 110–117.
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., Ashkenazi, T., Ganis, G., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2022). Verbal lie detection: Its past, present and future. Brain Sciences, 12(12), 1644.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., 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(3), 253–265.
Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, D. (2014). A social cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation–Decision–Construction–Action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22–36.
Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, D. (2014). A social‑cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation–Decision–Construction–Action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22–36.
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 755–774.
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 755–774.
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automated linguistics‑based cues for detecting deception in text‑based asynchronous computer‑mediated communication: An empirical investigation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81–106.
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). Academic Press References
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Global Synthesis in Education Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
