↓ Skip to main content

“You can't kid a kidder”: association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
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 (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
30 X users
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
“You can't kid a kidder”: association between production and detection of deception in an interactive deception task
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon R. T. Wright, Christopher J. Berry, Geoffrey Bird

Abstract

Both the ability to deceive others, and the ability to detect deception, has long been proposed to confer an evolutionary advantage. Deception detection has been studied extensively, and the finding that typical individuals fare little better than chance in detecting deception is one of the more robust in the behavioral sciences. Surprisingly, little research has examined individual differences in lie production ability. As a consequence, as far as we are aware, no previous study has investigated whether there exists an association between the ability to lie successfully and the ability to detect lies. Furthermore, only a minority of studies have examined deception as it naturally occurs; in a social, interactive setting. The present study, therefore, explored the relationship between these two facets of deceptive behavior by employing a novel competitive interactive deception task (DeceIT). For the first time, signal detection theory (SDT) was used to measure performance in both the detection and production of deception. A significant relationship was found between the deception-related abilities; those who could accurately detect a lie were able to produce statements that others found difficult to classify as deceptive or truthful. Furthermore, neither ability was related to measures of intelligence or emotional ability. We, therefore, suggest the existence of an underlying deception-general ability that varies across individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 105 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 31 27%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 13 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#604,712
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#262
of 7,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,167
of 251,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#12
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 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 7,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 251,987 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 293 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 95% of its contemporaries.