The costs of lying: Consequences of telling lies on liar's self-esteem and affect.

Deceiving others is generally viewed as immoral. However, most people lie on a daily basis. This article examines the psychological consequences for the liars themselves, as they are participating in what is generally perceived as immoral behaviour.

Preventing Zoonoses: Testing an Intervention to Change Attitudes and Behaviors toward More Protective Actions.

Zoonotic outbreaks are considered one of the most important threats to public health. Therefore, it is important to educate people on how to prevent zoonotic infections. The purpose of this research was to investigate an intervention aimed at changing people's attitudes and behaviors toward more protective actions.

The Limits of Conscious Deception Detection: When Reliance on False Deception Cues Contributes to Inaccurate Judgments.

People are generally too trusting, which decreases their ability to detect deceit. This suggests that distrust could enhance our deception detection abilities. Yet, a state of distrust may induce deliberative conscious thought.

Explaining the persistent influence of facial cues in social decision-making.

Impressions of trustworthiness based on facial cues influence many consequential decisions, in spite of their (generally) poor accuracy. Here, we test whether reliance on facial cues can be better explained by (a) the belief that facial cues are more valid than other cues or by (b) the quick and primary processing of faces, which makes relying on facial cues relatively effortless. Six studies ( = 2,732 with 73,182 trust decisions) test the two accounts by comparing the effects of facial cues and economic payoffs on trust decisions.

Unconscious deception detection measured by finger skin temperature and indirect veracity judgments-results of a registered report.

A pre-registered experiment was conducted to examine psychophysiological responses to being lied to. Bridging research on social cognition and deception detection, we hypothesized that observing a liar compared to a truth-teller would decrease finger skin temperature of observers. Participants first watched two targets while not forewarned that they would later be asked to judge (direct and indirect) veracity, and then watched another two targets while forewarned about this.

Healthy food consumption in young women. The influence of others' eating behavior and body weight appearance.

People's eating behaviors tend to be influenced by the behaviors of others. In the present studies, we investigated the effect of another person's eating behavior and body weight appearance on healthy food consumption of young women. In Study 1, participants watched a short film fragment together with a confederate who appeared normal weight or overweight and consumed either 3 or 10 cucumber slices.

Registered report: measuring unconscious deception detection by skin temperature.

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.

Mimicry and just world beliefs: mimicking makes men view the world as more personally just.

People's just world beliefs are related to how they feel and behave towards others: the stronger people hold beliefs that the world treats them fairly, the more they feel and act pro-socially towards others. It is conceivable, therefore, that pro-social feelings and behaviours towards others can strengthen people's personal belief in a just world, especially when people expect these positive feelings to be returned. Because mimicry enhances pro-social feelings towards others, we argue that mimicry may strengthen peoples' personal just world beliefs via positive feelings for the mimicked person and the expectation that these positive feelings are returned.

Does mimicking others change your self-view?

Does mimicking affect the way you think about yourself in relation to other people? In the present study, we instructed participants to either mimic or not mimic the expressions of their interaction partner. After a 3-minute interaction, participants' self-view in relation to others was measured. Results revealed that mimickers defined themselves more in relation to others than nonmimickers.

Being mimicked makes you a prosocial voter.

People's voting behavior has a great impact on the political road that is taken in our countries. The current research shows that mimicry, the imitation of nonverbal behavior, unconsciously affects our political voting behavior. Earlier research has shown that mimicry enhances prosocial thoughts and behaviors.

Effects of a priori liking on the elicitation of mimicry.

Mimicry and prosocial feelings are generally thought to be positively related. However, the conditions under which mimicry and liking are related largely remain unspecified. We advance this specification by examining the relationship between mimicry and liking more thoroughly.

Mimicry in social interaction: benefits for mimickers, mimickees, and their interaction.

Mimicry has benefits for people in social interactions. However, evidence regarding the consequences of mimicry is incomplete. First, research on mimicry has particularly focused on effects of being mimicked.

You want to know the truth? Then don't mimic!

Mimicry facilitates the ability to understand what other people are feeling. The present research investigated whether this is also true when the expressions that are being mimicked do not reflect the other person's true emotions. In interactions, targets either lied or told the truth, while observers mimicked or did not mimic the targets' facial and behavioral movements.

Facial feedback mechanisms in autistic spectrum disorders.

Facial feedback mechanisms of adolescents with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) were investigated utilizing three studies. Facial expressions, which became activated via automatic (Studies 1 and 2) or intentional (Study 2) mimicry, or via holding a pen between the teeth (Study 3), influenced corresponding emotions for controls, while individuals with ASD remained emotionally unaffected. Thus, individuals with ASD do not experience feedback from activated facial expressions as controls do.