否定还是否定,所以是真的?真理判断中概念效价和语义否定对框架效应驱动因素的研究

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Mariela E. Jaffé, Rainer Greifeneder
{"title":"否定还是否定,所以是真的?真理判断中概念效价和语义否定对框架效应驱动因素的研究","authors":"Mariela E. Jaffé, Rainer Greifeneder","doi":"10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The negativity bias in judgments of truth holds that content-wise identical statements are more likely to be judged as true when presented in a negative compared to positive concept frame. This article investigates the mechanisms underlying this concept frame effect by differentiating concept valence (something good versus bad) and semantic negation (grammatical operator) throughout five studies. We found some evidence that concept valence and semantic negation work in tandem to produce the concept frame, yet negation seems to be the more stable driver. Moreover, we found that negation exerts its impact on perceived truth by increasing the realm of possible states in which a specific statement can be true. Together, the present findings extend knowledge of the negativity bias in truth judgments by providing a more fine-grained picture of “negativity” and an explanation for why negation might be especially effective in increasing truth judgments.","PeriodicalId":48050,"journal":{"name":"Social Cognition","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negative or Negated, Thus True? An Investigation of Concept Valence and Semantic Negation as Drivers of Framing Effects in Judgments of Truth\",\"authors\":\"Mariela E. Jaffé, Rainer Greifeneder\",\"doi\":\"10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The negativity bias in judgments of truth holds that content-wise identical statements are more likely to be judged as true when presented in a negative compared to positive concept frame. This article investigates the mechanisms underlying this concept frame effect by differentiating concept valence (something good versus bad) and semantic negation (grammatical operator) throughout five studies. We found some evidence that concept valence and semantic negation work in tandem to produce the concept frame, yet negation seems to be the more stable driver. Moreover, we found that negation exerts its impact on perceived truth by increasing the realm of possible states in which a specific statement can be true. Together, the present findings extend knowledge of the negativity bias in truth judgments by providing a more fine-grained picture of “negativity” and an explanation for why negation might be especially effective in increasing truth judgments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Cognition\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.687\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.6.687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

真理判断中的消极偏见认为,与积极概念框架相比,在消极概念框架中呈现的内容相同的陈述更有可能被判断为真实。本文通过对五项研究中概念效价(好与坏)和语义否定(语法操作符)的区分,探讨了概念框架效应的机制。我们发现一些证据表明,概念效价和语义否定协同工作产生概念框架,但否定似乎是更稳定的驱动因素。此外,我们发现否定通过增加特定陈述可能为真的可能状态的范围来影响感知真理。总之,目前的研究结果通过提供一个更细致的“消极性”图片,扩展了对真理判断中消极偏见的认识,并解释了为什么否定可能在增加真理判断中特别有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negative or Negated, Thus True? An Investigation of Concept Valence and Semantic Negation as Drivers of Framing Effects in Judgments of Truth
The negativity bias in judgments of truth holds that content-wise identical statements are more likely to be judged as true when presented in a negative compared to positive concept frame. This article investigates the mechanisms underlying this concept frame effect by differentiating concept valence (something good versus bad) and semantic negation (grammatical operator) throughout five studies. We found some evidence that concept valence and semantic negation work in tandem to produce the concept frame, yet negation seems to be the more stable driver. Moreover, we found that negation exerts its impact on perceived truth by increasing the realm of possible states in which a specific statement can be true. Together, the present findings extend knowledge of the negativity bias in truth judgments by providing a more fine-grained picture of “negativity” and an explanation for why negation might be especially effective in increasing truth judgments.
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
Social Cognition
Social Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: An excellent resource for researchers as well as students, Social Cognition features reports on empirical research, self-perception, self-concept, social neuroscience, person-memory integration, social schemata, the development of social cognition, and the role of affect in memory and perception. Three broad concerns define the scope of the journal: - The processes underlying the perception, memory, and judgment of social stimuli - The effects of social, cultural, and affective factors on the processing of information The behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive processes.
×
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