• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Group decision and negotiation >Justifications and Questions in Detecting Deception
【24h】

Justifications and Questions in Detecting Deception

机译：检测欺骗的理由和问题

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

Truth-tellers and deceivers use justifications to bolster their credibility, but given their different motivations, truth-tellers and deceivers may use justifications differently. Participants were assigned the role of allocator or recipient in an ultimatum game. Allocators received money based on their performance on a task and made an offer. Recipients did not have information about allocator's task performance or amount the allocator received, and therefore, allocators could deceive. Liars provided more plausible details to support their offer by stating the structure of their task; this strategy backfired and led to more detection of lies. Truth-tellers were more likely to disclose advantageous information about their endowment of money in their justifications, and this reduced suspicion in their offers. Deceivers used more wrap-up questions to end the interaction; this did not help reduce partner suspicion. Asking questions in general did not improve detection accuracy.
机译：讲真话者和欺骗者使用正当理由来增强自己的信誉，但是鉴于他们的动机不同，说真话者和欺骗者可能会使用不同的理由。在最后通game游戏中，为参与者分配了分配者或接收者的角色。分配者根据他们在某项任务上的表现而收到钱并提出了要约。收件人没有有关分配器的任务性能或分配器收到的数量的信息，因此，分配器可能会欺骗。说谎者通过陈述其任务的结构提供了更合理的细节来支持他们的提议。这种策略适得其反，并导致更多的谎言发现。讲真话的人更有可能在其理据中披露有关其金钱end赋的有利信息，这减少了他们对要约的怀疑。欺骗者使用更多的总结性问题来结束互动。这无助于减少伴侣的怀疑。一般而言，提问不会提高检测准确性。

著录项

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