向英语好的人求助。帮忙翻译。感激不尽、 50
Thesecondfeatureweexaminedwasdirectness.Verbaldeceptionresearchhasshownthattruthtelle...
The second feature we examined was directness. Verbal deception research has shown
that truth tellers use more direct phrases than liars (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone,
Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). Thus, when describing a location, truth tellers
are more likely to include sentences that imply direct perceptual experience (e.g. ‘I
saw. . .’) whereas liars are more likely to convey indirect, hypothetical knowledge (e.g. ‘I
would see. . ..’) (Hypothesis 2). A similar distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ could
be made in the drawings. Participants could have sketched their drawing from one of two
perspectives: From a ‘shoulder camera’ (observer) position, where someone sketches what
she/he could actually see, or from an ‘overhead’ (actor) position, where someone sketches
the location as it could be seen from the air. The former is more direct and likely to be the
result of actual first-hand experience than the latter, which ‘removes’ the participant from
the scene. We thus predicted that more truth tellers than liars would sketch the drawing
from a shoulder camera position (Hypothesis 3). 展开
that truth tellers use more direct phrases than liars (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone,
Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). Thus, when describing a location, truth tellers
are more likely to include sentences that imply direct perceptual experience (e.g. ‘I
saw. . .’) whereas liars are more likely to convey indirect, hypothetical knowledge (e.g. ‘I
would see. . ..’) (Hypothesis 2). A similar distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ could
be made in the drawings. Participants could have sketched their drawing from one of two
perspectives: From a ‘shoulder camera’ (observer) position, where someone sketches what
she/he could actually see, or from an ‘overhead’ (actor) position, where someone sketches
the location as it could be seen from the air. The former is more direct and likely to be the
result of actual first-hand experience than the latter, which ‘removes’ the participant from
the scene. We thus predicted that more truth tellers than liars would sketch the drawing
from a shoulder camera position (Hypothesis 3). 展开
展开全部
我们检查的第二个特性是率直。言语欺骗研究显示真话的使用比骗子更直接的语(DePaulo,Lindsay, Malone,Muhlenbruck,Charlton,和Cooper,2003年)。因此,当描述一个位置,说真话的人更可能包含暗示直接的感性经验的句子(如,我觉得...)而说谎者更容易传达间接的,假设的内容(如我会认为...)(假设2)。一个直接和间接之间类似的区分可在图纸上做出来。参与者可以从两个方面中的一个勾勒出他们的画:从一个肩膀相机(观察者)的位置,在那里有人画着她或他实际所能看到的,或者从一个开销(演员)的位置,在那里有人画着似乎透过空气后还能被看到的地方。前者比后者更直接和更可能作为实际亲身经历的结果,它从现场移除了参与者。我们因此预测,更多说实话的人比骗子会从观察者的角度描绘出素描场景
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
展开全部
我们查验的第二个特征是直接。对言语欺骗的研究表明,说真话者比说谎者使用的言语更为直接(德保罗,琳赛,马隆,慕琳布鲁克,查尔顿和库珀,2003)。因此,当描述一个场所,说真话者更可能说那些隐含直接知觉体验的句子(例如,“我看见…”)而说谎者更容易传达间接、假设的情况(例如,“我可能看到…”)(假设2)。“直接”和“间接”之间一个类似的区分可以在画图中进行。参与者可以从两个角度勾勒出他们的图画:从‘肩上的照相机’(观察者)的位置,此处的人画的是她/他确实可以看到的东西,或从一个“头顶”(演员)的位置,此处的人画的场景是可以从空中看到的。前者比后者更直接、更可能是真实的第一手(亲身)体验的结果,它将参与者从现场“剔除出去”。因此我们预计,从肩上的相机位置画图的人中,说真话者比说谎者要多(假设3)。
本回答被网友采纳
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
展开全部
我们检查了第二个特性是率直。言语欺骗研究表明真话的使用更为直接的短语比骗子(DePaulo,林赛,马龙,Muhlenbruck,查尔顿,&库珀,2003)。因此,当描述一个位置,真理更可能包括句子意味着直接的知觉经验(例如,‘Isaw。。。”)而说谎者更容易传达间接,假设的知识(例如,‘我会看见。。. .”)(假设2)。类似的区分“直接”和“间接”可以在图纸。参与者可以勾勒出他们的绘画从两种观点之一:从“肩相机”(观察者)的位置,在那里有人草图实际上可以看到她/他,或从一个“架空”(演员)的位置,有人素描位置,因为它可以看到空气。前者是更直接的和可能的结果实际比后者的第一手经验,“删除”的参与者从场景。我们因此预测,更多的真话比骗子会勾勒肩相机位置(假设3)。
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
推荐律师服务:
若未解决您的问题,请您详细描述您的问题,通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询