• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Communication Quarterly >Deciding How to Deceive: Differences in Communication and Detection Between Good and Bad Liars
【24h】

Deciding How to Deceive: Differences in Communication and Detection Between Good and Bad Liars

机译：决定如何欺骗：好的和坏的骗子之间在沟通和检测上的差异

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

To study deception, participants were randomly assigned the role of allocator or recipient in an ultimatum negotiation game. Allocators “earned” 7 dollars and divided the money between themselves and recipient and communicated the decision either face-to-face or through text chat. Recipients were unaware the amount the allocator had, and therefore, allocators could deceive. Most allocators used deception. We hypothesized that participants who self-identified as good liars would communicate more face-to-face than through text chat when deceiving, and this was supported for deceptive omission but not fabrications. Good liars were more likely to have their truths correctly detected than bad liars.
机译：为了研究欺骗，在最后通negotiation的谈判游戏中，参与者被随机分配了分配者或接受者的角色。分配者“赚了” 7美元，然后在自己和接收者之间分配了钱，并与他们面对面或通过文字聊天传达了这一决定。收件人不知道分配器的数量，因此分配器可能会欺骗。大多数分配器使用欺骗。我们假设自欺欺人的参与者在欺骗时会比通过文字聊天进行更多的面对面交流，这是欺骗性的遗漏，但不是捏造的。好的骗子比坏的骗子更容易正确地发现自己的真相。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Communication Quarterly》 |2017年第5期|503-522|共20页
  • 作者

    Lyn M. Van Swol; Jihyun Esther Paik;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Communication Arts at University of Wisconsin-Madison;

    Department of Communication Arts at University of Wisconsin-Madison;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Deception; Detection; Lie; Negativity Bias; Online; Truth Bias;

    机译：欺骗;检测;位于;负偏线上;真相偏见;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号