{"id":{"repo_id":"uoit","oai_identifier":"oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/1671"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uoit/oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/1671","repository":{"repo_id":"uoit","name":"Ontario Institute of Technology","base_url":"https://ontariotechu.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Dual-task interference and its influence on deception detection and memory","abstract":"Using a dual-task paradigm, I examined how engaging in executive function tasks impacted deception detection and memory performance. University students (N = 185) were randomly assigned to detect deception while also performing a concurrent monitoring, memory, planning, motor, or visual task, or no additional task (single-task control). Compared to those in the single-task control condition, participants in the memory and planning conditions were significantly less likely to be accurate when detecting deception. Those in the memory condition self-reported experiencing higher ratings of cognitive load and exhibited poorer recognition. Differences in decision-making processes could not account for these effects. The results suggest performance deficits in deception detection can be attributable to isolated cognitive demands; even simply adding a secondary task can be impactful. Investigative interviewers may be particularly disadvantaged when under different types of cognitive load while detecting deception.","abstract_html":"Using a dual-task paradigm, I examined how engaging in executive function tasks impacted deception detection and memory performance. University students (N = 185) were randomly assigned to detect deception while also performing a concurrent monitoring, memory, planning, motor, or visual task, or no additional task (single-task control). Compared to those in the single-task control condition, participants in the memory and planning conditions were significantly less likely to be accurate when detecting deception. Those in the memory condition self-reported experiencing higher ratings of cognitive load and exhibited poorer recognition. Differences in decision-making processes could not account for these effects. The results suggest performance deficits in deception detection can be attributable to isolated cognitive demands; even simply adding a secondary task can be impactful. Investigative interviewers may be particularly disadvantaged when under different types of cognitive load while detecting deception.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Blake, Chelsea K."],"institution":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","degree_name":"Master of Science (MSc)","degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":"Forensic Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Leach, Amy-May"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2023,"date_issued":"2023-08-01","date_published":"2023-08-01","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:18Z","subjects":["Deception detection","Dual-task interference","Cognitive load","Memory"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1671","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Leach, Amy-May"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Blake, Chelsea K."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2023-08-29T14:04:24Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2023-08-29T14:04:24Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2023-08-01"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Forensic Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science (MSc)"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Deception detection","Dual-task interference","Cognitive load","Memory"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1671"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Using a dual-task paradigm, I examined how engaging in executive function tasks impacted deception detection and memory performance. University students (N = 185) were randomly assigned to detect deception while also performing a concurrent monitoring, memory, planning, motor, or visual task, or no additional task (single-task control). Compared to those in the single-task control condition, participants in the memory and planning conditions were significantly less likely to be accurate when detecting deception. Those in the memory condition self-reported experiencing higher ratings of cognitive load and exhibited poorer recognition. Differences in decision-making processes could not account for these effects. The results suggest performance deficits in deception detection can be attributable to isolated cognitive demands; even simply adding a secondary task can be impactful. Investigative interviewers may be particularly disadvantaged when under different types of cognitive load while detecting deception."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Dual-task interference and its influence on deception detection and memory"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Leach, Amy-May"],"dc:creator":["Blake, Chelsea K."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2023-08-29T14:04:24Z"],"dc:date.available":["2023-08-29T14:04:24Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2023-08-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["Using a dual-task paradigm, I examined how engaging in executive function tasks impacted deception detection and memory performance. University students (N = 185) were randomly assigned to detect deception while also performing a concurrent monitoring, memory, planning, motor, or visual task, or no additional task (single-task control). Compared to those in the single-task control condition, participants in the memory and planning conditions were significantly less likely to be accurate when detecting deception. Those in the memory condition self-reported experiencing higher ratings of cognitive load and exhibited poorer recognition. Differences in decision-making processes could not account for these effects. The results suggest performance deficits in deception detection can be attributable to isolated cognitive demands; even simply adding a secondary task can be impactful. Investigative interviewers may be particularly disadvantaged when under different types of cognitive load while detecting deception."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1671"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:subject":["Deception detection","Dual-task interference","Cognitive load","Memory"],"dc:title":["Dual-task interference and its influence on deception detection and memory"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Forensic Psychology"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science (MSc)"],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:18Z"}