↓ Skip to main content

Deceptively simple … The “deception-general” ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Deceptively simple … The “deception-general” ability and the need to put the liar under the spotlight
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon R. T. Wright, Christopher J. Berry, Geoffrey Bird

Abstract

This Focused Review expands upon our original paper (You can't kid a kidder": Interaction between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6:87). In that paper we introduced a new socially interactive, laboratory-based task, the Deceptive Interaction Task (DeceIT), and used it to measure individuals' ability to lie, their ability to detect the lies of others, and potential individual difference measures contributing to these abilities. We showed that the two skills were correlated; better liars made better lie detectors (a "deception general" ability) and this ability seemed to be independent of cognitive (IQ) and emotional (EQ) intelligence. Here, following the Focused Review format, we outline the method and results of the original paper and comment more on the value of lab-based experimental studies of deception, which have attracted criticism in recent years. While acknowledging that experimental paradigms may fail to recreate the full complexity and potential seriousness of real-world deceptive behavior, we suggest that lab-based deception paradigms can offer valuable insight into ecologically-valid deceptive behavior. The use of the DeceIT procedure enabled deception to be studied in an interactive setting, with motivated participants, and importantly allowed the study of both the liar and the lie detector within the same deceptive interaction. It is our thesis that by addressing deception more holistically-by bringing the liar into the "spotlight" which is typically trained exclusively on the lie detector-we may further enhance our understanding of deception.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Slovakia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Lecturer 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2014.
All research outputs
#1,983,156
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,065
of 11,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,592
of 294,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#38
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.