↓ Skip to main content

Good Liars Are Neither ‘Dark’ Nor Self-Deceptive

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
137 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.
Article details
Title
Good Liars Are Neither ‘Dark’ Nor Self-Deceptive
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0127315
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Deception is a central component of the personality 'Dark Triad' (Machiavellianism, Psychopathy and Narcissism). However, whether individuals exhibiting high scores on Dark Triad measures have a heightened deceptive ability has received little experimental attention. The present study tested whether the ability to lie effectively, and to detect lies told by others, was related to Dark Triad, Lie Acceptability, or Self-Deceptive measures of personality using an interactive group-based deception task. At a group level, lie detection accuracy was correlated with the ability to deceive others-replicating previous work. No evidence was found to suggest that Dark Triad traits confer any advantage either to deceive others, or to detect deception in others. Participants who considered lying to be more acceptable were more skilled at lying, while self-deceptive individuals were generally less credible and less confident when lying. Results are interpreted within a framework in which repeated practice results in enhanced deceptive ability.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 134 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 39 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 43 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 07 September 2026.
All research outputs
#911,164
of 34,554,170 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,010
of 225,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,357
of 303,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#260
of 7,010 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,554,170 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 225,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 303,384 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7,010 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 96% of its contemporaries.