finalize R2

paper/manuscript.Rmd

@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ knitr::include_graphics("../figures/figure2.png")
 
 <!-- While there is an extensive body of literature associating deception with social cognition and emotion regulation, most research had been focused on their roles in deception detection, leaving a paucity in studies pertaining to their influence on lying ability.  -->
 
-The present study examined the contribution of ToM and interoception on our ability to lie using a directed lie paradigm with two conditions ("Interrogation" and "Polygraph") designed to enhance each of the two mechanisms. Interestingly, we found that when participants' responses were perceived to be evaluated by a person (the interrogation condition), instead of (fake) lie detection machine (the polygraph condition), their response time for both lies and truths were faster, and their heart rate was elevated. Although the condition did not impact the subjective confidence that participants had in their answers, the pattern of results suggests that believing one's response is being evaluated by a person, instead of a machine, could induce more fear, consequently speeding up the response and increasing the physiological arousal [@aylward2017impact]. Alternatively, the slower response in the polygraph condition could be explained by the established attentional switching hypothesis, which posits that an increase in attention towards internal signals and managing one's emotional reaction would confer less cognitive resources available, thereby resulting in individuals taking a longer time to respond [@arnold2019interoception; @hanania2010selective]. Individual differences in their interoceptive and ToM abilities further modulated the reported confidence, response time and physiological arousal in each condition.
+The present study examined the contribution of ToM and interoception on our ability to lie using a directed lie paradigm with two conditions ("Interrogation" and "Polygraph") designed to enhance each of the two mechanisms. Interestingly, we found that when participants' responses were perceived to be evaluated by a person (the interrogation condition), instead of (fake) lie detection machine (the polygraph condition), their response time for both lies and truths were faster, and their heart rate was elevated. Although the condition did not impact the subjective confidence that participants had in their answers, the pattern of results suggests that believing one's response is being evaluated by a person, instead of a machine, could induce more fear, consequently speeding up the response and increasing the physiological arousal [@aylward2017impact]. Alternatively, the slower response in the polygraph condition could be explained by the established attentional switching hypothesis, which posits that an increase in attention towards internal signals and managing one's emotional reaction would confer less cognitive resources available, thereby resulting in individuals taking a longer time to respond [@arnold2019interoception; @hanania2010selective]. While the impacts of external settings on individuals' responses warrant further investigation, the results highlight how physiological responses can be easily confounded by other factors (e.g., presence or absence of a stimuli), independent of whether one is lying or telling the truth. By extension, our study concurs with the controversial discourse surrounding the use of physiological measures in deception research [@rosky2013f; @oviatt2018handbook].
 
 <!-- While research linking interoception and deception is limited, our results are in line with studies that show an association between interoceptive awareness and anxiety [@yoris2015roles; @garfinkel2013interoception; @domschke2010interoceptive]. Specifically, enhancing one's attention towards their internal bodily signals could have resulted in a hyper-vigilance towards physiological sensations that is perceived negatively. This is consistent with previous deception detection studies, in which participants' spontaneous lying behaviour only decreased when they were given feedback by a polygraph machine, but not when no feedback was given [@peleg2019lie]. By extension, our study adds to the controversial discourse surrounding the use of physiological measures in past deception research, further questioning its validity as an indicator of deception [@rosky2013f; @oviatt2018handbook]. -->
 
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ The present study examined the contribution of ToM and interoception on our abil
 <!-- Using a bi-modal feedback deception task, we found partial support for our hypothesis. Specifically, participants reported lower lie confidence and took a longer time to respond, but were less physiologically aroused in the *Polygraph* condition, relative to the *Interrogation* condition. While this mixed finding is challenging to interpret, it is possible that one's interoceptive sensitivity, enhanced by the perceived interoceptive cues, interacted with the stress experienced in such deceptive interactions and led to a depletion of cognitive resources [@ten2015physically; @porter2012secrets]. Indeed, the experience of excessive stress has been shown to impair interoceptive accuracy, leading to a hyper-focus on internal bodily signals [@schulz2015interoception]. Furthermore, this is also in line with the established attentional switching hypothesis, which posits that an increase in attention towards internal signals and managing one's emotional reaction would confer less cognitive resources available for the actual act of telling a lie, thereby resulting in individuals taking a longer time to respond, and rating their lies with less confidence [@arnold2019interoception; @hanania2010selective]. This interplay of interoception and maladaptive stress response, and their effect on lying ability hence underscores the complexity underlying successful deceptive behaviour. -->
 
 <!-- ToM -->
-Our results suggest that higher ToM abilities were related to slower and less confident lies, but only in the polygraph condition. While previous bodies of work have reported mixed findings regarding the association between interoception and ToM [@scaffidi2016self; @gendolla2009self; @wundrack2023mindful; @chiou2013enactment], our results suggest the two are negatively linked. One possible interpretation of our findings is that people with stronger ToM abilities by default rely more on their social skills and altercentric inference when lying (i.e., they focus on - and try to read - the other person). When that mechanism is unavailable or unsuited (e.g., when there is no person to lie to - but a "machine" in our case), their corresponding lying ability decreases. However, in light of the current field of mixed findings relating interoception and ToM [@shah2017heart; @gao2019body; @canino2022embodiment; @miller2015connections], future studies are necessary to investigate the interaction of these mechanisms in different social contexts.
+Furthermore, our results suggest that higher ToM abilities were related to slower and less confident lies, but only in the polygraph condition. While previous bodies of work have reported mixed findings regarding the association between interoception and ToM [@scaffidi2016self; @gendolla2009self; @wundrack2023mindful; @chiou2013enactment], our results suggest the two are negatively linked. One possible interpretation of our findings is that people with stronger ToM abilities by default rely more on their social skills and altercentric inference when lying (i.e., they focus on - and try to read - the other person). When that mechanism is unavailable or unsuited (e.g., when there is no person to lie to - but a "machine" in our case), their corresponding lying ability decreases. However, in light of the current field of mixed findings relating interoception and ToM [@shah2017heart; @gao2019body; @canino2022embodiment; @miller2015connections], future studies are necessary to investigate the interaction of these mechanisms in different social contexts.
 
 <!-- ionship between ToM and deception in contexts where interoceptive abilities are emphasized, the observed effects are in line with studies that suggest negative links associating ToM with interoceptive sensibility (i.e., the self-perceived tendency to monitor internal signals) [@canino2022embodiment].  -->