↓ Skip to main content

Do True and False Intentions Differ in Level of Abstraction? A Test of Construal Level Theory in Deception Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Do True and False Intentions Differ in Level of Abstraction? A Test of Construal Level Theory in Deception Contexts
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Calderon, Erik Mac Giolla, Pär Anders Granhag, Karl Ask

Abstract

The aim was to examine how people mentally represent alleged future actions-their true and false intentions. In two experiments, participants were asked to either tell the truth (i.e., express true intentions) or lie (i.e., express false intentions) about performing future tasks. Drawing on Construal Level Theory, which proposes that psychologically distant events are more abstractly construed than proximal ones, it was predicted that liars would have more abstract mental representations of the future tasks than truth tellers, due to differences in hypotheticality (i.e., the likelihood of the future tasks occurring). Construal level was measured by a video segmentation task (Experiment 1, N = 125) and preference for abstract or concrete descriptions of tasks (Experiment 2, N = 59). Veracity had no effect on construal level. Speaking against our initial predictions, the data indicate that true and false intentions are construed at similar levels of abstraction. The results are discussed in the light of Construal Level Theory and the emerging psycho-legal research on true and false intentions.

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 5 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Lecturer 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 37%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,763,731
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,364
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,906
of 437,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#254
of 548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 437,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 548 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 52% of its contemporaries.