• 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

相似文献

1
When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful than Truth-Telling? A Baker's Dozen of Moderators.何时编造欺骗性信息比讲真话更费力?十三个调节因素。
Front Psychol. 2015 Dec 24;6:1965. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01965. eCollection 2015.
2
The contribution of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to the preparation for deception and truth-telling.背外侧前额叶皮质对欺骗和说实话准备的贡献。
Brain Res. 2012 Jun 29;1464:43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.05.004. Epub 2012 May 9.
3
Lie, truth, lie: the role of task switching in a deception context.谎言、真相、谎言:任务切换在欺骗情境中的作用。
Psychol Res. 2015 May;79(3):478-88. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0582-4. Epub 2014 Jun 13.
4
An empirical test of the decision to lie component of the Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT).对激活-决策-构建-行动理论(ADCAT)中说谎决策部分的实证检验。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016 Sep;169:45-55. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.004. Epub 2016 May 22.
5
Functional Interactions Between Neural Substrates of Socio-cognitive Mechanisms Involved in Simple Deception and Manipulative Truth.涉及简单欺骗和操纵真相的社会认知机制的神经基质的功能相互作用
Brain Connect. 2022 Sep;12(7):639-649. doi: 10.1089/brain.2021.0063. Epub 2021 Oct 22.
6
Deceptive Intentions: Can Cues to Deception Be Measured before a Lie Is Even Stated?欺骗意图:在谎言甚至尚未说出之前,能否对欺骗线索进行测量?
PLoS One. 2015 May 27;10(5):e0125237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125237. eCollection 2015.
7
The honest truth about deception: Demographic, cognitive, and neural correlates of child repeated deceptive behavior.关于欺骗的真实真相:儿童反复欺骗行为的人口统计学、认知及神经关联
J Exp Child Psychol. 2017 Oct;162:225-241. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.009. Epub 2017 Jun 14.
8
Detecting spontaneous deception in the brain.检测大脑中的自发性欺骗。
Hum Brain Mapp. 2022 Jul;43(10):3257-3269. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25849. Epub 2022 Mar 28.
9
Telling ingratiating lies: effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success.讲讨好性谎言:目标对象的性别和吸引力对言语及非言语欺骗成功率的影响。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985 May;48(5):1191-203. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.5.1191.
10
Truth and lies in your eyes: Pupil dilation of White participants in truthful and deceptive responses to White and Black partners.在你的眼中是真相还是谎言:在对白人及黑人伙伴做出真实及欺骗反应时,白人参与者的瞳孔扩张。
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 13;15(10):e0239512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239512. eCollection 2020.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing the impact of previous experience on lie effects through a transfer paradigm.通过转移范式评估先前经验对谎言效应的影响。
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 26;11(1):8961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88387-1.
2
The Presence of 'Um' as a Marker of Truthfulness in the Speech of TV Personalities.“嗯”作为电视名人言语中真实性标志的存在。
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2016 Dec 6;24(4):549-560. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2016.1256018. eCollection 2017.
3
Separating the Wheat From the Chaff: Guidance From New Technologies for Detecting Deception in the Courtroom.去伪存真:法庭上检测欺骗行为的新技术指南
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 17;9:774. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00774. eCollection 2018.
4
Microexpressions Are Not the Best Way to Catch a Liar.微表情并非识破谎言的最佳方式。
Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 20;9:1672. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01672. eCollection 2018.
5
The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers.从欺骗者角度看测谎仪评估标准的战略意义。
Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 8;9:855. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00855. eCollection 2018.
6
Learning to Detect Deception from Evasive Answers and Inconsistencies across Repeated Interviews: A Study with Lay Respondents and Police Officers.通过反复询问中的回避性回答和前后矛盾来学习识别欺骗:一项针对普通受访者和警察的研究。
Front Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;8:2207. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02207. eCollection 2017.

本文引用的文献

1
Self-serving dishonest decisions can show facilitated cognitive dynamics.利己的不诚实决策可能表现出认知动态的便利化。
Cogn Process. 2015 Aug;16(3):291-300. doi: 10.1007/s10339-015-0660-6. Epub 2015 Jun 17.
2
Deception effects on standing center of pressure.欺骗对站立时压力中心的影响。
Hum Mov Sci. 2014 Dec;38:106-15. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.08.009. Epub 2014 Sep 29.
3
Response to anticipated reward in the nucleus accumbens predicts behavior in an independent test of honesty.伏隔核中对预期奖励的反应预测了在独立诚实测试中的行为。
J Neurosci. 2014 Aug 6;34(32):10564-72. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0217-14.2014.
4
Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty.催产素促进群体服务型不诚实。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 15;111(15):5503-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400724111. Epub 2014 Mar 31.
5
Cry me a river: identifying the behavioral consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception.痛哭流涕:识别高风险人际欺骗的行为后果。
Law Hum Behav. 2012 Dec;36(6):469-477. doi: 10.1037/h0093929. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
6
Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications).诚实需要时间(也需要没有借口)。
Psychol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;23(10):1264-70. doi: 10.1177/0956797612443835. Epub 2012 Sep 12.
7
The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in deception when remembering neutral and emotional events.背外侧前额叶皮层在回忆中性和情绪事件时的欺骗作用。
Neurosci Res. 2011 Feb;69(2):121-8. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2010.11.001. Epub 2010 Nov 11.
8
Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex specifically processes general - but not personal - knowledge deception: Multiple brain networks for lying.背外侧前额叶皮层专门处理一般的——而不是个人的——知识欺骗:说谎的多个大脑网络。
Behav Brain Res. 2010 Aug 25;211(2):164-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.03.024. Epub 2010 Mar 20.
9
The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses.前额叶皮层和执行控制对欺骗行为的作用:激活可能性估计元分析的证据
Cereb Cortex. 2009 Jul;19(7):1557-66. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn189. Epub 2008 Nov 2.
10
Speaking of secrets and lies: the contribution of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to vocal deception.说到秘密与谎言:腹外侧前额叶皮层在言语欺骗中的作用。
Neuroimage. 2008 Apr 15;40(3):1411-8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.035. Epub 2008 Feb 1.

何时编造欺骗性信息比讲真话更费力?十三个调节因素。

When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful than Truth-Telling? A Baker's Dozen of Moderators.

作者信息

Burgoon Judee K

机构信息

Center for the Management of Information, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona Tucson, AZ, USA.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2015 Dec 24;6:1965. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01965. eCollection 2015.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01965
PMID:26733932
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4689870/
Abstract

Deception is thought to be more effortful than telling the truth. Empirical evidence from many quarters supports this general proposition. However, there are many factors that qualify and even reverse this pattern. Guided by a communication perspective, I present a baker's dozen of moderators that may alter the degree of cognitive difficulty associated with producing deceptive messages. Among sender-related factors are memory processes, motivation, incentives, and consequences. Lying increases activation of a network of brain regions related to executive memory, suppression of unwanted behaviors, and task switching that is not observed with truth-telling. High motivation coupled with strong incentives or the risk of adverse consequences also prompts more cognitive exertion-for truth-tellers and deceivers alike-to appear credible, with associated effects on performance and message production effort, depending on the magnitude of effort, communicator skill, and experience. Factors related to message and communication context include discourse genre, type of prevarication, expected response length, communication medium, preparation, and recency of target event/issue. These factors can attenuate the degree of cognitive taxation on senders so that truth-telling and deceiving are similarly effortful. Factors related to the interpersonal relationship among interlocutors include whether sender and receiver are cooperative or adversarial and how well-acquainted they are with one another. A final consideration is whether the unit of analysis is the utterance, turn at talk, episode, entire interaction, or series of interactions. Taking these factors into account should produce a more nuanced answer to the question of when deception is more difficult than truth-telling.

摘要

人们认为欺骗比讲真话更费精力。来自诸多方面的实证证据支持这一普遍观点。然而,有许多因素会限定甚至扭转这种模式。从交流视角出发,我列举了十三个调节因素,它们可能会改变生成欺骗性信息所涉及的认知难度程度。在与发送者相关的因素中,有记忆过程、动机、诱因和后果。说谎会增加与执行记忆、抑制不必要行为以及任务切换相关的脑区网络的激活,而讲真话时则不会出现这种情况。强烈的动机加上强大的诱因或不良后果的风险,也会促使讲真话者和说谎者都付出更多的认知努力,以使自己显得可信,这对表现和信息生成努力会产生相关影响,具体取决于努力程度、沟通者技能和经验。与信息及交流情境相关的因素包括话语类型、搪塞的类型、预期回应长度、交流媒介、准备情况以及目标事件/问题的新近程度。这些因素可以减轻发送者的认知负担,从而使讲真话和欺骗所费精力相当。与对话者之间人际关系相关的因素包括发送者和接收者是合作还是对抗关系,以及他们彼此的熟悉程度。最后要考虑的是分析单位是话语、轮流发言、情节、整个互动还是一系列互动。考虑到这些因素,对于欺骗何时比讲真话更难这个问题,应该能给出一个更细致入微的答案。