↓ Skip to main content

Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, 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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Van Bockstaele, B. Verschuere, T. Moens, Kristina Suchotzki, Evelyne Debey, Adriaan Spruyt

Abstract

Cognitive theories on deception posit that lying requires more cognitive resources than telling the truth. In line with this idea, it has been demonstrated that deceptive responses are typically associated with increased response times and higher error rates compared to truthful responses. Although the cognitive cost of lying has been assumed to be resistant to practice, it has recently been shown that people who are trained to lie can reduce this cost. In the present study (n = 42), we further explored the effects of practice on one's ability to lie by manipulating the proportions of lie and truth-trials in a Sheffield lie test across three phases: Baseline (50% lie, 50% truth), Training (frequent-lie group: 75% lie, 25% truth; control group: 50% lie, 50% truth; and frequent-truth group: 25% lie, 75% truth), and Test (50% lie, 50% truth). The results showed that lying became easier while participants were trained to lie more often and that lying became more difficult while participants were trained to tell the truth more often. Furthermore, these effects did carry over to the test phase, but only for the specific items that were used for the training manipulation. Hence, our study confirms that relatively little practice is enough to alter the cognitive cost of lying, although this effect does not persist over time for non-practiced items.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Slovakia 1 1%
Unknown 93 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 26 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#3,785,192
of 23,426,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,561
of 31,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,521
of 247,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#114
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,426,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 247,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.