Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36308407›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2023

Self-deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous contexts.

Dongmei Mei, Zijun Ke, Zhihao Li, Wenjian Zhang, Dingguo Gao, Lijun Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dongmei MeiGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zijun KeGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhihao LiSchool of Psychology and Sociology, Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Affective and Social Cognitive Science, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Wenjian ZhangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Dingguo GaoGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Lijun YinGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Social Cognitive Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1748-3187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As one of the commonly used folk psychological concepts, self-deception has been intensively discussed yet is short of solid ground from cognitive neuroscience. Self-deception is a biased cognitive process of information to obtain or maintain a false belief that could be both self-enhancing or self-diminishing. Study 1 (N = 152) captured self-deception by adopting a modified numerical discrimination task that provided cheating opportunities, quantifying errors in predicting future performance (via item-response theory model), and measuring the belief of how good they are at solving the task (i.e., self-efficacy belief). By examining whether self-efficacy belief is based upon actual ability (true belief) or prediction errors (false belief), Study 1 showed that self-deception occurred in the effortless (easier access to answer cues) rather than effortful (harder access to answer cues) cheating opportunity conditions, suggesting high ambiguity in attributions facilitates self-deception. Studies 2 and 3 probed the neural source of self-deception, linking self-deception with the metacognitive process. Both studies replicated behavioral results from Study 1. Study 2 (ERP study; N = 55) found that the amplitude of frontal slow wave significantly differed between participants with positive/self-enhancing and negative/self-diminishing self-deceiving tendencies in incorrect predictions while remaining similar in correct predictions. Study 3 (functional magnetic resonance imaging study; N = 33) identified self-deceiving associated activity in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex and showed that effortless cheating context increased cheating behaviors that further facilitated self-deception. Our findings suggest self-deception is a false belief associated with a distorted metacognitive mental process that requires ambiguity in attributions of behaviors.

Indexed as

MetacognitionCuesDeceptionHumansPrefrontal Cortexanterior medial prefrontal cortexcheatingmetacognitionself-deception

Identifiers

PMID36308407
PMCPMC9875939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.