↓ Skip to main content

A Repeated Lie Becomes a Truth? The Effect of Intentional Control and Training on Deception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
A Repeated Lie Becomes a Truth? The Effect of Intentional Control and Training on Deception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoqing Hu, Hao Chen, Genyue Fu

Abstract

Deception has been demonstrated as a task that involves executive control such as conflict monitoring and response inhibition. In the present study, we investigated whether or not the controlled processes associated with deception could be trained to be more efficient. Forty-eight participants finished a reaction time-based differentiation of deception paradigm (DDP) task using self- and other-referential information on two occasions. After the first baseline DDP task, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group in which participants finished the same task for a second time; an instruction group in which participants were instructed to speed up their deceptive responses in the second DDP; a training group in which participants received training in speeding up their deceptive responses, and then proceeded to the second DDP. Results showed that instruction alone significantly reduced the RTs associated with participants' deceptive responses. However, the differences between deceptive and truthful responses were erased only in the training group. The result suggests that the performance associated with deception is malleable and could be voluntarily controlled with intention or training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 85 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 27 July 2023.
All research outputs
#442,212
of 25,613,746 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#919
of 34,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,258
of 251,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#17
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,613,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 251,149 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 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.