↓ Skip to main content

Modulation of incentivized dishonesty by disgust facial expressions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Modulation of incentivized dishonesty by disgust facial expressions
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00250
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Lim, Paul M. Ho, O'Dhaniel A. Mullette-Gillman

Abstract

Disgust modulates moral decisions involving harming others. We recently specified that this effect is bi-directionally modulated by individual sensitivity to disgust. Here, we show that this effect generalizes to the moral domain of honesty and extends to outcomes with real-world impact. We employed a dice-rolling task in which participants were incentivized to dishonestly report outcomes to increase their potential final monetary payoff. Disgust or control facial expressions were presented subliminally on each trial. Our results reveal that the disgust facial expressions altered honest reporting as a bi-directional function moderated by individual sensitivity. Combining these data with those from prior experiments revealed that the effect of disgust presentation on both harm judgments and honesty could be accounted for by the same bidirectional function, with no significant effect of domain. This clearly demonstrates that disgust facial expressions produce the same modulation of moral judgments across different moral foundations (harm and honesty). Our results suggest strong overlap in the cognitive/neural processes of moral judgments across moral foundations, and provide a framework for further studies to specify the integration of emotional information in moral decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 2 8%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 21 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,688,662
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,846
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,650
of 275,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#43
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 275,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.