↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the movement dynamics of deception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Exploring the movement dynamics of deception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas D. Duran, Rick Dale, Christopher T. Kello, Chris N. H. Street, Daniel C. Richardson

Abstract

BOTH THE SCIENCE AND THE EVERYDAY PRACTICE OF DETECTING A LIE REST ON THE SAME ASSUMPTION: hidden cognitive states that the liar would like to remain hidden nevertheless influence observable behavior. This assumption has good evidence. The insights of professional interrogators, anecdotal evidence, and body language textbooks have all built up a sizeable catalog of non-verbal cues that have been claimed to distinguish deceptive and truthful behavior. Typically, these cues are discrete, individual behaviors-a hand touching a mouth, the rise of a brow-that distinguish lies from truths solely in terms of their frequency or duration. Research to date has failed to establish any of these non-verbal cues as a reliable marker of deception. Here we argue that perhaps this is because simple tallies of behavior can miss out on the rich but subtle organization of behavior as it unfolds over time. Research in cognitive science from a dynamical systems perspective has shown that behavior is structured across multiple timescales, with more or less regularity and structure. Using tools that are sensitive to these dynamics, we analyzed body motion data from an experiment that put participants in a realistic situation of choosing, or not, to lie to an experimenter. Our analyses indicate that when being deceptive, continuous fluctuations of movement in the upper face, and somewhat in the arms, are characterized by dynamical properties of less stability, but greater complexity. For the upper face, these distinctions are present despite no apparent differences in the overall amount of movement between deception and truth. We suggest that these unique dynamical signatures of motion are indicative of both the cognitive demands inherent to deception and the need to respond adaptively in a social context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 22%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 43%
Engineering 8 7%
Decision Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 17 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,085,073
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,544
of 35,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,508
of 294,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#330
of 967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.