Sabine Ströfer, Elze G. Ufkes, Merijn Bruijnes, Ellen Giebels, Matthijs L. Noordzij
Abstract
It has been consistently demonstrated that deceivers generally can be discriminated from truth tellers by monitoring an increase in their physiological response. But is this still the case when deceivers interact with a virtual avatar? The present research investigated whether the mere "belief" that the virtual avatar is computer or human operated forms a crucial factor for eliciting physiological cues to deception. Participants were interviewed about a transgression they had been seduced to commit, by a human-like virtual avatar. In a between-subject design, participants either deceived or told the truth about this transgression. During the interviews, we measured the physiological responses assessing participants' electrodermal activity (EDA). In line with our hypothesis, EDA differences between deceivers and truth tellers only were significant for participants who believed they interacted with a human operated (compared to a computer operated) avatar. These results have theoretical as well as practical implications which we will discuss.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#613,445
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,243
of 32,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,461
of 304,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#28
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 304,123 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
