儿童说谎行为的类型与研究范式

说谎行为是儿童社会化过程中的重要表现,儿童说谎行为的发展有利于其认知发展,促进其对社会道德规范的了解和学习,帮助其更好地适应社会的发展。回顾现有的儿童说谎的类型,包括反社会谎言和亲社会谎言,介绍儿童说谎的研究范式以更全面地了解儿童说谎的种类,包括被动说谎范式和主动说谎范式,并在以往研究基础上指出未来可研究方向,如修改范式、增加对亲社会谎言的研究和对特殊儿童的谎言研究等,可以更好地理解儿童说谎的发展过程及实践意义。     

多目标追踪中“线索”研究的贡献

多目标追踪范式是探讨动态情景下注意加工过程的成熟技术,其对不同阶段注意线索加工与利用的分析,对深入了解注意的动态信息加工过程具有重要意义。从注意线索的视角述评呈现阶段的内源性线索与外源性线索以及追踪阶段的目标数量动态变化和轨迹线索的研究成果及限制因素,提出多目标线索研究是客体档案理论与视觉索引理论之争的关键。虽然多目标追踪范式为内源性线索、外源性线索的提取与策略等研究提供很多便利,但目前该范式在线索的认知资源分配和加工策略上仍有研究留白,尚需进一步探索。     

意图线索对5-11岁儿童理解说谎概念及道德评价的影响

研究探讨了交往意图的直接阐述与否对5、7、9和11岁儿童说谎/说真话概念判断及其道德评价的影响。结果表明:5岁儿童在作说谎或说真话的判断及其道德评价时,还不会利用意图线索;自7岁或9岁起意图明确与否影响着儿童概念判断与道德评价;但对不同言语情景的影响并不相同。由此也证实了意图线索对儿童说谎概念的判断及其道德评价的作用除了与儿童的年龄有关外,还取决于言语的情景。     

视觉返回抑制的实验范式

综述了视觉返回抑制的实验范式及相关研究。Posner和Cohen在研究视觉空间注意内部转移过程的实验中发现了返回抑制现象,这一实验被视为经典的返回抑制实验。后来通过大量的研究,形成了线索-靶子和靶子-靶子两大实验范式。线索-靶子范式中根据线索呈现方式、任务类型、刺激呈现方式等方面的不同,又可以细分为一系列小的范式和方法;而靶子-靶子范式的应用主要集中在与辨别任务的结合,以及跨通道的研究中     

视觉与言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导

通过三个实验,探讨不同时间进程下视觉和言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。实验1采用注意引导与注意探测任务同时呈现的范式,探讨不同记忆项与注意项时间间隔(SOA)条件下言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。结果发现,当SOA较短时言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意有引导效应,而SOA较长时未观察到引导效应;实验2、3采用注意引导任务与注意探测任务分离范式,分别探讨在不同SOA条件下言语和视觉工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。结果发现,不同SOA条件下言语和视觉工作记忆表征均能引导视觉注意。研究表明,不同实验范式对言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导有明显影响,视觉比言语工作记忆表征能在更广泛条件下引导视觉注意。     

欺骗的身体线索

身体线索作为一种重要的非言语交流形式,在欺骗识别中具有重要作用。根据线索理论,说谎者心理状态的变化会表现在外在行为上。但是,欺骗的身体线索的研究发现与线索理论的预测并不一致。本研究在梳理欺骗的身体线索研究的基础上,讨论了身体线索与欺骗的关系并不确定的原因,并指出未来研究需要关注认知负荷干预的研究取向和计算机辅助的线索量化方法。     

视觉工作记忆中的特征捆绑

特征捆绑是认知科学和神经科学研究的前沿问题,近来已经成为研究者们关于意识问题争论的焦点所在。很多心理活动涉及复杂对象各种特征的捆绑,在工作记忆中保持这些捆绑的机制是心理加工得以有效进行的基础。视觉工作记忆中的特征捆绑近来成为研究热点之一,有关研究大多凭借变化检测范式和单刺激探测范式,探讨了视觉工作记忆中捆绑特征的保持是否需要注意参与,以及分离特征存储和捆绑特征存储的关系等问题,但目前这些问题仍都没有明确的答案。     

说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究

国外关于说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究主要包括对说谎时行为表现的研究、对说谎识别准确率的研究及测谎技术的开发与应用。说谎是人类社会普遍存在的现象,但研究显示人们对说谎行为的识别准确率并不显著高于随机判断的概率。说谎者通常所表现出来的与说真话时不同的特点被称为“线索”,人们对说谎线索的看法与说谎者的实际行为表现并不一致。动机、互动特点、个体差异、沟通情境等因素对说谎和识别行为都会产生影响。网络沟通方式下的说谎行为呈现出一些新的特点     

汉语母语者视听言语知觉发展趋势研究

6~12岁儿童、13~18岁青少年和20~30岁成人被试各30名,运用McGurk效应研究范式对汉语母语者视听言语知觉的发展趋势进行探讨。所有被试需要接受纯听和视听两种条件下的测试,其任务是出声报告自己听到的刺激。结果发现：（1）三个年龄阶段汉语母语者被试在安静听力环境下的单音节加工中都受到了视觉线索的影响,表现出了McGurk效应;（2）三个年龄阶段汉语母语者被试McGurk效应的强度存在显著差异,其受视觉言语影响的程度表现出随年龄增长而增强的发展趋势;（3）13岁以后汉语被试在视听一致下对视觉线索的依赖没有显著增强,但是在视听冲突下视觉言语的影响仍然在逐渐增强。     

不同反应线索条件下调节匹配对建议采纳的影响

研究的目的是为了探究不同反应线索条件下调节匹配对建议采纳的影响。实验中有两个反应线索：言语性反应线索(实验一)与非言语性反应线索(实验二), 两个实验均采用2(调节取向：促进/防御)×2(建议策略：渴望/警惕)的混合设计。实验一、二的被试分别是81和79名在校大学生, 年龄均在19~25岁之间。实验结果表明, 在言语反应线索条件下, 调节匹配时人们对建议的采纳程度更高; 在非言语性反应线索条件下, 防御取向时, 调节匹配时人们显著提高了建议的采纳程度, 但促进取向条件人们对建议的采纳程度无明显差异。结果表明在促进取向下非言语性反应线索对调节匹配具有干扰作用, 这个结果值得进一步研究。     

Detecting deception in a bluffing body: The role of expertise

Studies of deception detection traditionally have focused on verbal communication. Nevertheless, people commonly deceive others through nonverbal cues. Previous research has shown that intentions can be inferred from the ways in which people move their bodies. Furthermore, motor expertise within a given domain has been shown to increase visual sensitivity to other people’s movements within that domain. Does expertise also enhance deception detection from bodily movement? In two psychophysical studies, experienced basketball players and novices attempted to distinguish deceptive intentions (fake passes) and veridical intentions (true passes) from an observed individual’s actions. Whereas experts and novices performed similarly with postural cues, only experts could detect deception from kinematics alone. These results demonstrate a link between action expertise and the detection of nonverbal deception.     

基于语言内容的谎言识别

语言内容线索是识别谎言的三种线索之一, 主要分为基于标准的内容分析和真实监控两个模型。语言内容线索模型主要有基于标准的内容分析、真实监控、人际欺骗理论和语言接近度等4种, 这些模型在理论基础、识别标准和识别有效性上各不相同。此外, 年龄、社会技能、幻想倾向、文化差异、事件熟悉度、人际互动和询问策略等因素都会影响语言内容线索的有效性。未来的研究需要从整合模型、发展谎言线索、量化线索等方面进一步完善语言内容线索, 并通过发展主动识别技巧, 结合非语言行为线索以提高语言内容线索识别谎言的正确率。     

欺骗识别的准确率：影响因素与提高途径

欺骗是一种常见的社会现象,通过观察他人的行为表现识别欺骗则是人们的一项重要能力。研究表明,人们的欺骗识别能力仅仅略微高于随机水平。本文关注基于行为线索的欺骗识别研究。首先,介绍欺骗识别的准确率;然后,结合Brunswik的透镜模型从欺骗线索的有效性和欺骗线索的利用两方面分析识别准确率的影响因素;并在此基础上探讨了提高识别准确率的途径。最后,对未来可能的研究方向进行展望。     

The dimensions of deception detection: Self‐reported deception cue use is underpinned by two broad factors

Many perceived cues to deception have been reported in the literature, but little attention has been paid to how they are combined when making deception judgments. The present research used a data‐driven approach to investigate how cues are integrated when evaluating veracity. Two hundred fifteen participants performed a deception detection task before completing a deception cue use questionnaire. A factor analysis of the questionnaire data produced two dimensions, one associated with nonverbal cues to anxiety and the other associated with detail and level of involvement. The present work extends our understanding of deception detection processes and underlines the importance of examining not only the cues that people use but also the way in which they use them.     

“COME TO THINK OF IT…”

In Phase 1 of this study, communicators responded truthfully or deceptively to positive or negative interrogative probes. In Phase 2, the interviews were shown, at four levels of probe exposure, to observers who rated the communicators' eracity. In Phase 3, verbal and nonverbal cues were correlated with actual and perceived deception. Although exposure level had no effect on detection accuracy, liars and trulhtellers exposed to negative interrogative probes were judged more truthful than those exposed to positive probes. Analysis of the verbal and nonverbal cues revealed that none of the nonverbal cues relied on as indicators of deception were related to actual deception, and only one of the verbal cues (verbal content) was related to actual message veracity. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are offered.     

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

In this study, we investigated whether people who hold more correct beliefs about verbal cues to deception are also better lie detectors. We investigated police officers and undergraduates' beliefs about (i) cues to deception via an open‐ended question and (ii) 17 specific verbal cues, after which participants were asked to judge the truthfulness of eight video fragments. Results showed that undergraduates and police officers still hold wrongful beliefs about nonverbal cues, but have better insight into verbal cues. Moreover, a better insight in verbal cues was related to an increased accuracy for identifying truthful statements, showing that verbal cues do drive credibility judgments to some extent.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Impact of Computer Use on Employee Performance in High‐Trust Professions: Re‐Examining Selection Criteria in the Internet Age

Exposure to digital media is reconfiguring the neural networks of young people, possibly at the expense of empathy and social skills. Extraverts with high self‐esteem and certain personality traits tend to initiate face‐to‐face (FtF) contact with strangers; introverts lower in self‐esteem use computer‐mediated communication (CMC). Those who are overreliant on CMC miss nonverbal cues indicating deception and insincerity. This research suggests that many who have been raised in the Internet Age may be ill suited for high‐trust professions involving the establishment of FtF relationships. Greater use of psychological tests and observations of applicants engaged in behaviors that reveal desired personality traits are in order.     

Facial and vocal cues of deception and honesty

Facial expressions and vocal cues (filtered speech) of honest and deceptive messages were examined in posed and spontaneous situations. The question of interest was the degree to which nonverbal cues transmit information about deception. Results indicated that (a) for both the facial and vocal channels, posing (as compared to spontaneous behavior) produced a higher level of communication accuracy; (b) facial expressions of deceptive (as compared to honest) messages were rated as less pleasant, while vocal expressions of deception were rated as less honest, less assertive, and less dominant, particularly in the posed condition; (c) the sender's ability to convey honesty was negatively correlated with his/her ability to convey deception, suggesting the existence of a demeanor bias—individual senders tend to appear and sound consistently honest (or dishonest) regardless of whether they deliver an honest or a deceptive message; (d) in the posing condition, the sender's abilities to convey honesty/deception via facial and vocal cues were positively and significantly correlated, whereas in the spontaneous condition they were not; and (e) senders whose full (unfiltered) speech indicated more involvement with their responses were judged as more honest from both their vocal (filtered speech) and facial cues, in both the honest and deceptive conditions.     

Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments

Decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting lies. Two explanations for this finding have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that lie detection is inaccurate because people rely on invalid cues when judging deception. Second, it has been suggested that lack of valid cues to deception limits accuracy. A series of 4 meta-analyses tested these hypotheses with the framework of Brunswik's (1952) lens model. Meta-Analysis 1 investigated perceived cues to deception by correlating 66 behavioral cues in 153 samples with deception judgments. People strongly associate deception with impressions of incompetence (r = .59) and ambivalence (r = .49). Contrary to self-reports, eye contact is only weakly correlated with deception judgments (r = -.15). Cues to perceived deception were then compared with cues to actual deception. The results show a substantial covariation between the 2 sets of cues (r = .59 in Meta-Analysis 2, r = .72 in Meta-Analysis 3). Finally, in Meta-Analysis 4, a lens model analysis revealed a very strong matching between behaviorally based predictions of deception and behaviorally based predictions of perceived deception. In conclusion, contrary to previous assumptions, people rarely rely on the wrong cues. Instead, limitations in lie detection accuracy are mainly attributable to weaknesses in behavioral cues to deception. The results suggest that intuitive notions about deception are more accurate than explicit knowledge and that lie detection is more readily improved by increasing behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers than by informing lie-catchers of valid cues to deception.