↓ Skip to main content

Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding Our Horizon with a Working Memory Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding Our Horizon with a Working Memory Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siegfried L Sporer

Abstract

Recently, studies on deception and its detection have increased dramatically. Many of these studies rely on the "cognitive load approach" as the sole explanatory principle to understand deception. These studies have been exclusively on lies about negative actions (usually lies of suspects of [mock] crimes). Instead, we need to re-focus more generally on the cognitive processes involved in generating both lies and truths, not just on manipulations of cognitive load. Using Baddeley's (2000, 2007, 2012) working memory model, which integrates verbal and visual processes in working memory with retrieval from long-term memory and control of action, not only verbal content cues but also nonverbal, paraverbal, and linguistic cues can be investigated within a single framework. The proposed model considers long-term semantic, episodic and autobiographical memory and their connections with working memory and action. It also incorporates ironic processes of mental control (Wegner, 1994, 2009), the role of scripts and schemata and retrieval cues and retrieval processes. Specific predictions of the model are outlined and support from selective studies is presented. The model is applicable to different types of reports, particularly about lies and truths about complex events, and to different modes of production (oral, hand-written, typed). Predictions regarding several moderator variables and methods to investigate them are proposed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 21%
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 80 48%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Arts and Humanities 6 4%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 37 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,365,885
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,725
of 29,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,782
of 301,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#308
of 442 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 301,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 442 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.