谎言-真相判断：适应性测谎器理论与真相-默认理论的比较与对照

IF 4.7 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Communication Theory Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1093/ct/qtae008

Timothy R Levine, Chris N H Street

{"title":"谎言-真相判断：适应性测谎器理论与真相-默认理论的比较与对照","authors":"Timothy R Levine, Chris N H Street","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtae008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two contemporary theoretical perspectives explain when and how people make lie–truth judgments. The adaptive lie detector account (ALIED) and truth-default theory (TDT) are described, compared, and contrasted. ALIED and TDT come from different scholarly traditions and propose very different processes and mechanisms, yet they converge on many behavioral predictions. Both views presume adaptive processes. ALIED presumes that humans are adaptive by using available information while TDT presumes that the adaptive value of efficient communication outweighs the value of real-time deception detection. ALIED proposes a Bayesian reasoning approach to lie–truth judgments that weighs information based on its perceived diagnosticity, making no distinction in the processes between reaching a lie and truth judgment. TDT alternatively proposes that the passive presumption of the truth is the default, and the presence of triggers is required to reach a lie judgment. Suggestions for future research are provided.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lie–truth judgments: adaptive lie detector account and truth-default theory compared and contrasted\",\"authors\":\"Timothy R Levine, Chris N H Street\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ct/qtae008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two contemporary theoretical perspectives explain when and how people make lie–truth judgments. The adaptive lie detector account (ALIED) and truth-default theory (TDT) are described, compared, and contrasted. ALIED and TDT come from different scholarly traditions and propose very different processes and mechanisms, yet they converge on many behavioral predictions. Both views presume adaptive processes. ALIED presumes that humans are adaptive by using available information while TDT presumes that the adaptive value of efficient communication outweighs the value of real-time deception detection. ALIED proposes a Bayesian reasoning approach to lie–truth judgments that weighs information based on its perceived diagnosticity, making no distinction in the processes between reaching a lie and truth judgment. TDT alternatively proposes that the passive presumption of the truth is the default, and the presence of triggers is required to reach a lie judgment. Suggestions for future research are provided.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Theory\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae008\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

两种当代理论观点解释了人们何时以及如何做出谎言-真相判断。本文对适应性测谎器理论（ALIED）和真相默认理论（TDT）进行了描述、比较和对比。ALIED和TDT来自不同的学术传统，提出的过程和机制也大相径庭，但它们在许多行为预测上却趋于一致。这两种观点都假定了适应过程。ALIED 认为人类通过利用可用信息来适应环境，而 TDT 则认为高效交流的适应价值大于实时欺骗检测的价值。ALIED 提出了一种贝叶斯推理方法来进行谎言-真相判断，该方法根据信息的可感知诊断性来权衡信息，在得出谎言和真相判断的过程中不做任何区分。而 TDT 则提出，被动推定真相是默认的，需要有触发因素才能做出谎言判断。本文对未来的研究提出了建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Lie–truth judgments: adaptive lie detector account and truth-default theory compared and contrasted

Two contemporary theoretical perspectives explain when and how people make lie–truth judgments. The adaptive lie detector account (ALIED) and truth-default theory (TDT) are described, compared, and contrasted. ALIED and TDT come from different scholarly traditions and propose very different processes and mechanisms, yet they converge on many behavioral predictions. Both views presume adaptive processes. ALIED presumes that humans are adaptive by using available information while TDT presumes that the adaptive value of efficient communication outweighs the value of real-time deception detection. ALIED proposes a Bayesian reasoning approach to lie–truth judgments that weighs information based on its perceived diagnosticity, making no distinction in the processes between reaching a lie and truth judgment. TDT alternatively proposes that the passive presumption of the truth is the default, and the presence of triggers is required to reach a lie judgment. Suggestions for future research are provided.

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

Communication Theory COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

2.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Communication Theory is an international forum publishing high quality, original research into the theoretical development of communication from across a wide array of disciplines, such as communication studies, sociology, psychology, political science, cultural and gender studies, philosophy, linguistics, and literature. A journal of the International Communication Association, Communication Theory especially welcomes work in the following areas of research, all of them components of ICA: Communication and Technology, Communication Law and Policy, Ethnicity and Race in Communication, Feminist Scholarship, Global Communication and Social Change, Health Communication, Information Systems, Instructional/Developmental Communication, Intercultural Communication, Interpersonal Communication, Journalism Studies, Language and Social Interaction, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Philosophy of Communication, Political Communication, Popular Communication, Public Relations, Visual Communication Studies, Children, Adolescents and the Media, Communication History, Game Studies, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies, and Intergroup Communication. The journal aims to be inclusive in theoretical approaches insofar as these pertain to communication theory.