↓ Skip to main content

Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics
Published in
Cognitive Processing, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10339-015-0660-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryam Tabatabaeian, Rick Dale, Nicholas D. Duran

Abstract

We use a novel task to test two competing hypotheses concerning the cognitive processes involved in dishonesty. Many existing accounts of deception imply that in order to act dishonestly one has to use cognitive control to overcome a bias toward the truth, which results in more time and effort. A recent hypothesis suggests that lying in order to serve self-interest may be a rapid, even automatic tendency taking less time than refraining from lying. In the current study, we track the action dynamics of potentially dishonest decisions to investigate the underlying cognitive processes. Participants are asked to privately predict the outcome of a virtual coin flip, report their accuracy and receive bonus credit for accurate predictions. The movements of the computer cursor toward the target answer are recorded and used to characterize the dynamics of decisions. Our results suggest that when a self-serving condition holds, decisions that have a high probability of being dishonest take less time and experience less hesitation.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 58%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,816,612
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#179
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,159
of 264,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 264,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.