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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Catching a Deceiver in the Act: Processes Underlying Deception in an Interactive Interview Setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10484-016-9339-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabine Ströfer, Elze G. Ufkes, Matthijs L. Noordzij, Ellen Giebels |
| Abstract |
Lying is known to evoke stress and cognitive load. Both form cues to deception and lead to an increase in sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity. But in reality, deceivers stick to the truth most the time and only lie occasionally. The present study therefore examined in an interactive suspect interview setting, whether deceivers still have clearly diverging cognitive and emotional processes from truth tellers when only having the intention to lie incidentally. We found that deceivers who lied constantly diverge from truth tellers in SNS activity, self-reported cognitive load and stress. Across all interviews, SNS activity correlated stronger with self-reports of cognitive load than stress, which supports the cognitive load approach. Furthermore, deceivers who told the truth and lied on only one crucial question, particularly diverged in self-reported stress from truth-tellers. In terms of SNS activity and self-reported cognitive load, no differences were found. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 43% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#14,906,966
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#228
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,036
of 337,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 337,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them