用混合方法分析神经多元化青少年的欺骗侦测能力

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Kelly L. Coburn, Gillian N. Miller, Lucas A. Martin, Rajesh K. Kana
{"title":"用混合方法分析神经多元化青少年的欺骗侦测能力","authors":"Kelly L. Coburn, Gillian N. Miller, Lucas A. Martin, Rajesh K. Kana","doi":"10.1097/tld.0000000000000329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Differences in social cognition between autistic and nonautistic people may put autistic people at greater risk of being deceived. To inform communication interventions related to deception, the purposes of this mixed-methods study were to examine the deception detection strategies used by young adults with varying levels of autistic traits and to explore whether those strategies differed between groups or in terms of accuracy.\n \n \n \n Fifty-one young adults with varying levels of autistic traits watched a series of videos. For each video, the participant judged whether the recorded speaker was truthful and gave the reasoning for their judgment. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes in participants' stated reasons, which were used to quantitatively examine (1) between-group differences based on self-reported autistic traits and (2) theme-based differences in accuracy.\n \n \n \n Thematic analysis of the open-ended responses yielded four major themes: subjective descriptions of the person, nonverbal communication, observable features of the response, and nebulous reasons. Statistical analyses indicated no significant group differences in frequency of use of the four themes. When the four themes were compared with each other, observable response features yielded significantly more accurate judgments than nonverbal communication or subjective descriptions.\n \n \n \n Findings are discussed within the framework of speech–language pathologists' role in helping communicators determine a speaker's truthfulness, with the ultimate goal of avoiding deception and/or manipulation. Suggestions for incorporating research findings into the design of communication interventions are included.\n","PeriodicalId":51604,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Language Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Deception Detection by Neurodiverse Young Adults\",\"authors\":\"Kelly L. Coburn, Gillian N. Miller, Lucas A. Martin, Rajesh K. Kana\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/tld.0000000000000329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Differences in social cognition between autistic and nonautistic people may put autistic people at greater risk of being deceived. To inform communication interventions related to deception, the purposes of this mixed-methods study were to examine the deception detection strategies used by young adults with varying levels of autistic traits and to explore whether those strategies differed between groups or in terms of accuracy.\\n \\n \\n \\n Fifty-one young adults with varying levels of autistic traits watched a series of videos. For each video, the participant judged whether the recorded speaker was truthful and gave the reasoning for their judgment. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes in participants' stated reasons, which were used to quantitatively examine (1) between-group differences based on self-reported autistic traits and (2) theme-based differences in accuracy.\\n \\n \\n \\n Thematic analysis of the open-ended responses yielded four major themes: subjective descriptions of the person, nonverbal communication, observable features of the response, and nebulous reasons. Statistical analyses indicated no significant group differences in frequency of use of the four themes. When the four themes were compared with each other, observable response features yielded significantly more accurate judgments than nonverbal communication or subjective descriptions.\\n \\n \\n \\n Findings are discussed within the framework of speech–language pathologists' role in helping communicators determine a speaker's truthfulness, with the ultimate goal of avoiding deception and/or manipulation. Suggestions for incorporating research findings into the design of communication interventions are included.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":51604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0000000000000329\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Language Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0000000000000329","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自闭症患者与非自闭症患者在社会认知方面的差异可能会使自闭症患者面临更大的受骗风险。为了给与欺骗相关的沟通干预提供信息,本混合方法研究旨在考察具有不同程度自闭症特征的年轻人所使用的欺骗检测策略,并探讨这些策略在不同群体之间或在准确性方面是否存在差异。 51 名具有不同程度自闭症特征的年轻人观看了一系列视频。对于每段视频,受试者都要判断录制的说话者是否真实,并给出判断的理由。我们使用归纳式主题分析来确定参与者陈述的理由中的主题,并用这些主题来定量研究:(1)基于自我报告的自闭症特征的组间差异;(2)基于主题的准确性差异。 对开放式回答的主题分析产生了四大主题:对人的主观描述、非语言交流、回答的可观察特征和模糊原因。统计分析表明,四个主题的使用频率没有明显的组间差异。当四个主题相互比较时,可观察到的回答特征所产生的判断准确性明显高于非语言交流或主观描述。 研究结果将在语言病理学家的角色框架内进行讨论,语言病理学家的角色是帮助交流者判断说话者的真实性,最终目的是避免欺骗和/或操纵。此外,还提出了将研究结果纳入沟通干预设计的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Deception Detection by Neurodiverse Young Adults
Differences in social cognition between autistic and nonautistic people may put autistic people at greater risk of being deceived. To inform communication interventions related to deception, the purposes of this mixed-methods study were to examine the deception detection strategies used by young adults with varying levels of autistic traits and to explore whether those strategies differed between groups or in terms of accuracy. Fifty-one young adults with varying levels of autistic traits watched a series of videos. For each video, the participant judged whether the recorded speaker was truthful and gave the reasoning for their judgment. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes in participants' stated reasons, which were used to quantitatively examine (1) between-group differences based on self-reported autistic traits and (2) theme-based differences in accuracy. Thematic analysis of the open-ended responses yielded four major themes: subjective descriptions of the person, nonverbal communication, observable features of the response, and nebulous reasons. Statistical analyses indicated no significant group differences in frequency of use of the four themes. When the four themes were compared with each other, observable response features yielded significantly more accurate judgments than nonverbal communication or subjective descriptions. Findings are discussed within the framework of speech–language pathologists' role in helping communicators determine a speaker's truthfulness, with the ultimate goal of avoiding deception and/or manipulation. Suggestions for incorporating research findings into the design of communication interventions are included.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Topics in Language Disorders (TLD) is a double-blind peer-reviewed topical journal that has dual purposes: (1) to serve as a scholarly resource for researchers and clinicians who share an interest in spoken and written language development and disorders across the lifespan, with a focus on interdisciplinary and international concerns; and (2) to provide relevant information to support theoretically sound, culturally sensitive, research-based clinical practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信