↓ Skip to main content

Registered report: measuring unconscious deception detection by skin temperature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Registered report: measuring unconscious deception detection by skin temperature
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna E. van ’ t Veer, Mariëlle Stel, Ilja van Beest, Marcello Gallucci

Abstract

Findings from the deception detection literature suggest that although people are not skilled in consciously detecting a liar, they may intuit that something about the person telling a lie is off. In the current proposal, we argue that observing a liar influences the observer's physiology even though the observer may not be consciously aware of being lied to (i.e., the observers' direct deception judgment does not accurately differentiate between liars and truth-tellers). To test this hypothesis, participants' finger temperature will be measured while they watch videos of persons who are either honest or dishonest about their identity. We hypothesize that skin temperature will be lower when observing a liar than when observing a truth-teller. Additionally, we test whether perceiving a liar influences finger skin temperature differently when an individual is, or is not, alerted to the possibility of deceit. We do this by varying participants' awareness of the fact that they might be lied to. Next to measuring physiological responses to liars and truth-tellers, self-reported direct and indirect veracity judgments (i.e., trustworthiness and liking) of the target persons will be assessed. We hypothesize that indirect veracity judgments will better distinguish between liars and truth-tellers than direct veracity judgments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 62%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 5 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 June 2014.
All research outputs
#5,982,297
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,471
of 29,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,673
of 226,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#127
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 226,329 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 347 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 63% of its contemporaries.