↓ Skip to main content

What if I Get Busted? Deception, Choice, and Decision-Making in Social Interaction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
111 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.
Title
What if I Get Busted? Deception, Choice, and Decision-Making in Social Interaction
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamila E. Sip, Joshua C. Skewes, Jennifer L. Marchant, William B. McGregor, Andreas Roepstorff, Christopher D. Frith

Abstract

Deception is an essentially social act, yet little is known about how social consequences affect the decision to deceive. In this study, participants played a computerized game of deception without constraints on whether or when to attempt to deceive their opponent. Participants were questioned by an opponent outside the scanner about their knowledge of the content of a display. Importantly, questions were posed so that, in some conditions, it was possible to be deceptive, while in other conditions it was not. To simulate a realistic interaction, participants could be confronted about their claims by the opponent. This design, therefore, creates a context in which a deceptive participant runs the risk of being punished if their deception is detected. Our results show that participants were slower to give honest than to give deceptive responses when they knew more about the display and could use this knowledge for their own benefit. The condition in which confrontation was not possible was associated with increased activity in subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. The processing of a question which allows a deceptive response was associated with activation in right caudate and inferior frontal gyrus. Our findings suggest the decision to deceive is affected by the potential risk of social confrontation rather than the claim itself.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 100 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 42%
Neuroscience 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 19 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,525,206
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#733
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,925
of 250,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#12
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 250,100 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 92% of its contemporaries.