↓ Skip to main content

Receivers Limit the Prevalence of Deception in Humans: Evidence from Diving Behaviour in Soccer Players

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Receivers Limit the Prevalence of Deception in Humans: Evidence from Diving Behaviour in Soccer Players
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0026017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gwendolyn K. David, Catriona H. Condon, Candice L. Bywater, Daniel Ortiz-Barrientos, Robbie S. Wilson

Abstract

Deception remains a hotly debated topic in evolutionary and behavioural research. Our understanding of what impedes or facilitates the use and detection of deceptive signals in humans is still largely limited to studies of verbal deception under laboratory conditions. Recent theoretical models of non-human behaviour have suggested that the potential outcome for deceivers and the ability of receivers to discriminate signals can effectively maintain their honesty. In this paper, we empirically test these predictions in a real-world case of human deception, simulation in soccer. In support of theoretical predictions in signalling theory, we show that cost-free deceit by soccer players decreases as the potential outcome for the signaller becomes more costly. We further show that the ability of receivers (referees) to detect deceptive signals may limit the prevalence of deception by soccer players. Our study provides empirical support to recent theoretical models in signalling theory, and identifies conditions that may facilitate human deception and hinder its detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Romania 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 31%
Sports and Recreations 5 11%
Engineering 3 7%
Chemistry 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#512,020
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#7,042
of 224,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,914
of 145,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#70
of 2,641 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. 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 145,584 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,641 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 97% of its contemporaries.