• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

倾听,而非观察:情境熟悉度与察觉欺骗的能力。

Listening, not watching: situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception.

机构信息

Department of Social Science, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

出版信息

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Sep;101(3):467-84. doi: 10.1037/a0023726.

DOI:10.1037/a0023726
PMID:21707196
Abstract

In 4 experiments, the authors investigated the influence of situational familiarity with the judgmental context on the process of lie detection. They predicted that high familiarity with a situation leads to a more pronounced use of content cues when making judgments of veracity. Therefore, they expected higher classification accuracy of truths and lies under high familiarity. Under low situational familiarity, they expected that people achieve lower accuracy rates because they use more nonverbal cues for their veracity judgments. In all 4 experiments, participants with high situational familiarity achieved higher accuracy rates in classifying both truthful and deceptive messages than participants with low situational familiarity. Moreover, mediational analyses demonstrated that higher classification accuracy in the high-familiarity condition was associated with more use of verbal content cues and less use of nonverbal cues.

摘要

在 4 项实验中,作者研究了判断情境的熟悉度对谎言检测过程的影响。他们预测,对情境的高度熟悉会导致在判断真实性时更明显地使用内容线索。因此,他们预计在高度熟悉的情况下,真相和谎言的分类准确性会更高。在情境熟悉度低的情况下,他们预计人们的准确率会更低,因为他们会更多地使用非言语线索来判断真实性。在所有 4 项实验中,情境熟悉度高的参与者在分类真实和欺骗性信息时的准确率都高于情境熟悉度低的参与者。此外,中介分析表明,在高熟悉度条件下更高的分类准确性与更多地使用言语内容线索和更少地使用非言语线索有关。

相似文献

1
Listening, not watching: situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception.倾听,而非观察:情境熟悉度与察觉欺骗的能力。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Sep;101(3):467-84. doi: 10.1037/a0023726.
2
The influence of affective states on the process of lie detection.情感状态对测谎过程的影响。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012 Dec;18(4):377-89. doi: 10.1037/a0030466. Epub 2012 Nov 12.
3
Improving accuracy of veracity judgment through cue training.通过线索训练提高真实性判断的准确性。
Percept Mot Skills. 2004 Jun;98(3 Pt 1):1039-48. doi: 10.2466/pms.98.3.1039-1048.
4
Deception detection from written accounts.从书面陈述中进行欺骗检测。
Scand J Psychol. 2012 Apr;53(2):103-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00931.x. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
5
Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments.为什么测谎者会失败?人类谎言判断的透镜模型元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2011 Jul;137(4):643-59. doi: 10.1037/a0023589.
6
Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.判断欺骗行为中的个体差异:准确性与偏差。
Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;134(4):477-92. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477.
7
Heuristic versus systematic processing of information in detecting deception: questioning the truth bias.在检测欺骗时信息的启发式处理与系统处理:质疑真相偏差
Psychol Rep. 2009 Aug;105(1):11-36. doi: 10.2466/PR0.105.1.11-36.
8
The self in conflict: the role of executive processes during truthful and deceptive responses about attitudes.冲突中的自我:执行过程在关于态度的真实和欺骗性回应中的作用。
Neuroimage. 2008 Jan 1;39(1):469-82. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.032. Epub 2007 Aug 31.
9
The focal account: Indirect lie detection need not access unconscious, implicit knowledge.焦点叙述:间接测谎不一定需要获取无意识的、隐性的知识。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015 Dec;21(4):342-55. doi: 10.1037/xap0000058. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
10
The impact of repetition-induced familiarity on agreement with weak and strong arguments.重复引发的熟悉感对认同强弱论点的影响。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Jan;96(1):32-44. doi: 10.1037/a0013461.

引用本文的文献

1
Millennia of legal content criteria of lies and truths: wisdom or common-sense folly?数千年关于谎言与真相的法律内容标准:是智慧还是常识性的愚蠢?
Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 12;14:1219995. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219995. eCollection 2023.
2
Content, context, cues, and demeanor in deception detection.欺骗检测中的内容、语境、线索和行为表现。
Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 8;13:988040. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.988040. eCollection 2022.
3
Deception Detection in Politics: Can Voters Tell When Politicians are Lying?政治中的欺骗检测:选民能分辨出政治家何时在说谎吗?
Polit Behav. 2023;45(1):395-418. doi: 10.1007/s11109-021-09747-1. Epub 2021 Aug 20.
4
Accuracy, Confidence, and Experiential Criteria for Lie Detection Through a Videotaped Interview.通过录像访谈进行测谎的准确性、可信度和经验标准。
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 22;9:748. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748. eCollection 2018.
5
The Dark Triad and the PID-5 Maladaptive Personality Traits: Accuracy, Confidence and Response Bias in Judgments of Veracity.黑暗三性格与人格五因素模型中的适应不良人格特质:真实性判断中的准确性、信心和反应偏差
Front Psychol. 2017 Sep 21;8:1549. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01549. eCollection 2017.
6
Deception and Cognitive Load: Expanding Our Horizon with a Working Memory Model.欺骗与认知负荷:运用工作记忆模型拓展我们的视野
Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 7;7:420. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420. eCollection 2016.
7
Increasing skepticism toward potential liars: effects of existential threat on veracity judgments and the moderating role of honesty norm activation.对潜在说谎者的怀疑增加:存在性威胁对真实性判断的影响以及诚实规范激活的调节作用。
Front Psychol. 2015 Sep 1;6:1312. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01312. eCollection 2015.