what if i get busted? deception, choice and decision-making in social interaction.
Clicks: 205
ID: 255459
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
205 views
29 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #334 of 403 articles by views in Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 403 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
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 (subACC). The processing of a question which allows a deceptive response was associated with activation in right caudate and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Our findings suggest the decision to deceive is affected by the potential risk of social confrontation rather than the claim itself.
| Reference Key |
sip2012frontierswhat
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Kamila E Sip;Kamila E Sip;Kamila E Sip;Joshua C Skewes;Jennifer L Marchant Agustus;Jennifer L Marchant Agustus;William B McGregor;Andreas eRoepstorff;Andreas eRoepstorff;Christopher D Frith;Christopher D Frith |
| Journal | Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fnins.2012.00058
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.