情绪效价对欺骗行为可接受度的影响
The Influence of Emotion on the Acceptability of Deception
DOI: 10.12677/ASS.2023.123149, PDF,   
作者: 王俊琪：西南大学心理学部，重庆
关键词: 情绪；欺骗行为；欺骗行为可接受度；Emotion； Cheating； Acceptability of Cheating
摘要: 该研究的目的是探究不同类型的情绪对欺骗行为可接受度的影响。研究采用视听双通道情绪启动材料对被试进行了积极或消极的情绪启动，并根据谎言所涉及的利害关系，将谎言分为利他谎言、损人利己谎言和利己不损人谎言三种，使用《说谎的可接受度问卷》对欺骗行为可接受度进行测量。结果发现不同的谎言类型对欺骗行为可接受度影响显著，其中利他谎言接受度最高，损己利人谎言次之，对损人利己谎言的接受度最低。不同的情绪状态对三种类型的欺骗行为的接受度无显著影响，即无论被试是积极情绪还是消极情绪，对于不同谎言的可接受度之间差异不显著。
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of emotion on the acceptability of deception. The study used audio-visual dual-channel emotional priming materials to carry out positive or negative emotional priming on the subjects, and divided the lies into altruistic lies, self-interested lies and self-interested but not self-interested lies according to the interests involved in the lies. The acceptability of deception was measured using the “Acceptability of Lying Questionnaire”. The results show that different types of lies have a significant impact on the acceptability of deceptive behavior, among which altruistic lies have the highest acceptability, self-interested lies take the second place, and self-interested lies have the lowest acceptability. Different emotional states have no significant impact on the acceptability of the three types of deception, that is, whether the subjects are positive or negative, the acceptability of different lies has no significant difference.
文章引用：王俊琪. 情绪效价对欺骗行为可接受度的影响[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2023, 12(3): 1075-1080. https://doi.org/10.12677/ASS.2023.123149

参考文献

[1] Spence, S.A. and Kaylor-Hughes, C.J. (2008) Looking for Truth and Finding Lies: The Prospects for a Nascent Neuroimaging of Deception. Neurocase, 14, 68-81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Backbier, E., Hoogstraten, J. and Terwogt-Kouwenhoven, K.M. (2010) Situational Determinants of the Acceptability of Telling Lies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1048-1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[3] Gold, M. (2010) Is Honesty Always the Best Policy? Ethical Aspects of Truth Telling. Internal Medicine Journal, 34, 578-580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Kay, B. (1999) Children’s Categorization and Evaluation of Different Types of Lies and Truths. Child Development, 70, 1338-1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Mcdaniel, M.A. and Gradworks, T. (2007) Lying to Your Partner: Acceptability Based on Relationship Phase, Motive, and Sex Dyad. Dissertations.
[6] Mealy, M., Stephan, W. and Urrutia, I.C. (2007) The Acceptability of Lies: A Comparison of Ecuadorians and Euro-Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 689-702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] Haidt, J. (2001) The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[8] Greene, J. (2003) From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology? Nature Review Neuroscience, 4, 846-849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Cavanaugh, L.A., Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., et al. (2007) Appraising the Appraisal-Tendency Framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 169-173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[10] 杨昭宁, 顾子贝, 王杜娟. 愤怒和悲伤情绪对助人决策的影响:人际责任归因的作用简[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 393-403.
[11] 邵爱国. 关于说谎的道德认知研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2007.
[12] Helzer, E.G., et al. (2017) Once a Utilitarian, Consistently a Utilitarian? Examining Principledness in Moral Judgment via the Robustness of Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 85, 505-517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Mallucci, P., Wu, D.Y. and Cui, T.H. (2019) Social Motives in Bilateral Bargaining Games: How Power Changes Perceptions of Fairness. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 166, 138-152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[14] Wheatley, T. and Haidt, J. (2005) Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780-784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Beverly, A., et al. (2008) Predicting the Acceptability and Likelihood of Lying: The Interaction of Personality with Type of Lie. Personality Individual Differences, 45, 591-596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[16] Depaulo, B., et al. (1998) Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 74, 63-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[17] 王煜. 高中生欺骗行为可接受度与人际适应关系及其教育对策的研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 天津: 天津师范大学, 2012.

为你推荐