Name: the modified temptation resistance task: a paradigm to elicit children's strategic lie-telling
Uploaded: 2018-04-06T13:00:00.000+00:00
Duration: 6 min 51 s
Description: Watch this Scientific Journal Video about The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling at JoVE.com

这项研究由香港大学教育资助委员会的一般研究基金 (845211) 资助, 并获颁授给第一位作者的深圳大学研究补助金 (85302-000173)。我们感谢艾斯特女士的数据收集和儿童和家庭参与我们的研究。

本港教育大学的人类研究道德委员会 (HREC) 已批准上述所有方法。为每个孩子获得父母或监护人的书面知情同意。
1. 介绍和热身
<ol><li>把孩子和家长介绍给发展心理学实验室。确保该儿童没有发现隐藏摄像机的视频录制或相邻的观察室后, 单向镜。让单独的孩子坐在一个孩子大小的桌子旁边的实验者。</li>
	<li>让孩子有足够的时间去熟悉和舒适的环境和实验者。</li>
	<li>为孩子提供3件有吸引力的礼物来挑选最可取的。告诉孩子最可取的礼物是奖励, 如果他或她赢得了下面的猜谜游戏。</li>
	<li>让家长说, "以后再见" 给孩子。邀请家长在相邻的观察室中加入助手, 观察单向镜后面的测试会话。</li>
</ol>2. 猜谜游戏
<ol><li>准备三套隐藏的对象, 在不透明的倒置杯放置在沟槽板提前, 并保持他们的孩子的视线。在前两套中隐藏一个玩具, 如玩具车和乒乓球。用米饭把第三杯装满, 把它放在凹槽的盘子上。小心地处理大米杯以防意外泄漏。</li>
	<li>邀请孩子和实验者一起玩猜谜游戏: "让我们玩一个猜谜游戏吧。把一个杯子摆在一个凹槽的盘子上。告诉孩子: "杯子里藏着一个物体。你需要猜测什么是正确的三连续试验赢得这场比赛。</li>
	<li>在前两项试验中, 给出相关的线索, 让孩子 "猜" 正确, 例如, "在路上跑的是什么车？对于玩具车, 或" 什么是什么东西, 你可以玩乒乓球桨？打乒乓球。祝贺孩子连续两次获胜。</li>
	<li>在最后的审判, 呈现与隐藏的大米杯。把孩子最中意的礼物推在孩子面前说: "现在, 我们要玩最后一轮猜谜游戏了。如果你猜的正确, 你会得到你最喜欢的礼物;但你不会得到它, 如果你猜错了。</li>
	<li>确保助手在这个确切的瞬间敲开实验室的门, 让实验者离开房间片刻。</li>
	<li>告诉孩子: "不要举起杯子偷看。我马上回来。然后离开房间。</li>
</ol>3. 违法
注: 如果孩子举起杯子, 第三杯中的大米会散落在盘子里。盘子上的纹理凹槽使孩子们无法完全去除溢出的大米, 留下了违法的物证。
<ol><li>观察孩子在单向镜背后的行为。如果孩子偷看, 在实验者离开房间和孩子开始偷看的那一刻之间记录时间长短。</li>
	<li>3分钟后回到房间, 如果孩子不偷看, 或1分钟后, 孩子开始偷看。</li>
</ol>4. 说谎的行为
<ol><li>问孩子: "我走的时候, 你有没有举起杯子看看里面有什么？", 等待孩子的回应。<ol>
<li>如果孩子没有偷看, 请孩子猜测杯子里面是什么, 并揭示杯子的内容, 然后继续步骤6。</li>
		<li>如果孩子偷看并承认了这一罪过, 告诉孩子: "很难不偷看, 不是吗？然后继续步骤6。</li>
		<li>如果孩子偷看和撒谎说偷看, 也就是说, 他/她回答 "不" 尽管有明显的违法证据, 看着溢出的大米, 并说: "为什么大米是在杯外？, 然后转向孩子问:" 你肯定你没有李ft 杯, 看看里面是什么？ ", 并等待孩子的反应。</li>
	</ol>
</li>
</ol>5. 战略说谎
<ol><li>如果孩子承认他或她偷看, 告诉孩子, "这是很难不偷看, 是不是？然后继续步骤6。</li>
	<li>如果孩子继续否认在前面的步骤后偷看, 问后续问题: "那么大米是如何从杯中出来的呢？", 等待孩子的回应。</li>
</ol>6. 汇报
<ol><li>汇报孩子的情况告诉孩子这只是个游戏, 孩子们偷看或躺在游戏中是很正常的, 因为它很诱人。在会议结束时给每个孩子承诺的礼物, 无论他/她在试探抵抗任务中的反应如何。</li>
	<li>向父母汇报通知家长, 该议定书是专门设计, 以引起偷看和说谎的行为, 儿童, 约半数的儿童偷看或说谎。向父母解释, 这些行为反映了复杂的认知发展和社会行为, 在这种情况下, 他们并不被视为特别消极或顽皮。</li>
</ol>7. 数据处理和编码
注意: 需要为所有提到的响应编码建立 Interrater 的可靠性。
<ol><li>逐字转录视频记录儿童的口头反应编码。</li>
	<li>确保两个独立编码程序代码至少20% 的所有观察, 以建立 interrater 的可靠性。</li>
	<li>为了编码的战略谎言, 观看视频录音的观察和阅读的成绩单的儿童的反应, 以确定参与的意图。</li>
	<li>通过讨论解决两个独立编码员之间的差异。 注意: 没有举起杯子的孩子被编码为非 peekers, 包括那些仅仅触摸过杯子的人;举起杯子的孩子被认为是peekers。peekers进一步被编码为真相出纳(那些承认偷看) 和骗子(那些拒绝偷看的人)。说谎者对零星大米的解释进一步被编码为战略谎言和非战略谎言。战略谎言是合理的并且提到意图 (例如, "我只触碰了杯子, 但米出来了")。非战略性谎言缺乏可信度, 包括无法令人信服的解释 (例如"大米自己出来"), 无声的回应, 和 "我不知道" 的回应。根据犯罪和谎言的水平, 将儿童进一步归类为四组:非 peekers、真理出纳员、非战略骗子、和战略骗子.
</li>
</ol>

<ol>
	<li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Social+and+cognitive+correlates+of+children's+lying+behaviour.">Social and cognitive correlates of children's lying behaviour.</a> Child Dev. 79 (4), 866-881 (2008).</li><li>Wilson, A. E., Smith, M. D., Ross, H. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+nature+and+effects+of+young+children's+lies.">The nature and effects of young children's lies.</a> Soc Dev. 12 (1), 21-45 (2003).</li><li>Bussey, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+categorization+and+evaluation+of+different+types+of+lies+and+truths.">Children's categorization and evaluation of different types of lies and truths.</a> Child Dev. 70 (6), 1338-1347 (1999).</li><li>Evans, A. D., Xu, F., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=When+all+signs+point+to+you:+lies+told+in+the+face+of+evidence.">When all signs point to you: lies told in the face of evidence.</a> Dev Psychol. 47 (1), 39-49 (2011).</li><li>Williams, S. M., Kirmayer, M., Simon, T., Talwar, V. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+antisocial+and+prosocial+lies+to+familiar+and+unfamiliar+adults.">Children's antisocial and prosocial lies to familiar and unfamiliar adults.</a> Infant Child Dev. 22 (4), 430-438 (2013).</li><li>Talwar, V., Crossman, A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=From+little+white+lies+to+filthy+liars:+The+evolution+of+honesty+and+deception+in+young+children.">From little white lies to filthy liars: The evolution of honesty and deception in young children.</a> Adv Child Dev Behav. 40, 139-179 (2011).</li><li>Piaget, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> The Moral Judgment of the Child. , (1965).</li><li>Lewis, M., Stanger, C., Sullivan, M. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Deception+in+3-year-olds.">Deception in 3-year-olds.</a> Dev Psychol. 25 (3), 439-443 (1989).</li><li>Polak, A., Harris, P. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Deception+by+young+children+following+noncompliance.">Deception by young children following noncompliance.</a> Dev Psychol. 35 (2), 561-568 (1999).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Emergence+of+white+lie-telling+in+children+between+3+and+7+years+of+age.">Emergence of white lie-telling in children between 3 and 7 years of age.</a> Merrill-Palmer Quart. 48 (2), 160-181 (2002).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Development+of+lying+to+conceal+a+transgression:+Children's+control+of+expressive+behaviour+during+verbal+deception.">Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children's control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception.</a> Int J Behav Dev. 26 (5), 436-444 (2002).</li><li>Feldman, R. S., Jenkins, L., Popoola, O. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Detection+of+deception+in+adults+and+children+via+facial+expressions.">Detection of deception in adults and children via facial expressions.</a> Child Dev. 50 (2), 350-355 (1979).</li><li>Newton, P., Reddy, V., Bull, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+everyday+deception+and+performance+on+false-belief+tasks.">Children's everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks.</a> Brit J Dev Psychol. 18 (2), 297-317 (2000).</li><li>Sears, R., Rau, L., Alpert, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Identification and Child Rearing. , (1965).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., Lindsay, R. C. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+conceptual+knowledge+of+lie-telling+and+its+relation+to+their+actual+behaviors:+Implications+for+court+competence+examination.">Children's conceptual knowledge of lie-telling and its relation to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence examination.</a> Law Human Behav. 26 (4), 395-415 (2002).</li><li>Talwar, V., Gordon, H. M., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Lying+in+the+elementary+school+years:+Verbal+deception+and+its+relation+to+second-order+belief+understanding.">Lying in the elementary school years: Verbal deception and its relation to second-order belief understanding.</a> Dev Psychol. 43 (3), 804-810 (2007).</li><li>Baird, J. A., Astington, J. W., Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., Bargh, J. A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+development+of+the+intention+concept:+From+the+observable+world+to+the+unobservable+mind.">The development of the intention concept: From the observable world to the unobservable mind.</a> The New Unconscious. , 256-276 (2005).</li><li>Wang, L., Zhu, L., Wang, Z. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Parental+mind-mindedness+but+not+false+belief+understanding+predicts+Hong+Kong+children's+lie-telling+behavior+in+a+temptation+resistance+task.">Parental mind-mindedness but not false belief understanding predicts Hong Kong children's lie-telling behavior in a temptation resistance task.</a> J Exp Child Psychol. 162, 89-100 (2017).</li><li>Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., Watson, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Meta-analysis+of+theory-of-mind+development:+The+truth+about+false+belief.">Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief.</a> Child Dev. 72 (3), 655-684 (2001).</li><li>Perner, J., Wimmer, H. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term="John+thinks+that+Mary+thinks+that..."+attribution+of+second-order+beliefs+by+5-to+10-year-old+children.">"John thinks that Mary thinks that..." attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year-old children.</a> J Exp Child Psychol. 39 (3), 437-471 (1985).</li></ol>

作者没有什么可透露的。

本文详细的协议允许研究人员在实验环境中调查儿童的自发说谎行为。它为孩子们提供了一个机会, 不仅要讲述他们的罪行的主要谎言, 还要在面对证据掩盖他们的罪行时, 告诉他们更复杂的战略谎言。
在修改和执行本议定书时的一些考虑因素涉及程序和项目选择。研究人员可以选择跳过步骤 4.1, 因为这一步已经给孩子们提供了他们自己的主张和物证之间明显的冲突。因此, 包...

这种修改后的诱惑抵抗协议的总体目标是在精心设计的实验室环境中引出儿童的自然主义说谎行为。儿童说谎行为作为社会发展的一个重要方面, 是几十年来研究兴趣的焦点。说谎指的是将一个人或一个组的虚假陈述故意交付给另一个人或组1。撒谎掩盖自己的罪行是儿童2所展示的最常见和最早的欺骗形式, 尽管它被儿童和成人3非常消极地看待。这种类型的谎言服务出纳员的利益, 保护他们免受其违法行为的后果4, 但它违反了信任和中断通信规则, 违反信息平等的假设5。说谎虽然经常被视为一种反社会行为, 但它是一种重要的社会技能6, 它的出现反映了儿童在处理复杂的社会情况时的灵活性, 以确保他们自己的保存。因此, 在实验室环境中征募儿童的自发说谎行为, 不仅可以研究儿童撒谎作为一种社会行为本身的发展, 而且还允许调查认知和社会关联的说谎行为在童年时期。
尽管儿童的说谎行为在很长时间内吸引了研究的注意力7, 但在最近几十年里, 随着创新实验程序的发展, 关于自发说谎的重大进展才得以实现。这会导致孩子自发地说谎1,4,8,9,10,11。早期的研究要求儿童 "说谎" 关于某些事实12, 不反映说谎的秘密本质。说谎是一种欺骗行为, 听者不应该知道说谎者试图误导他或她;而听者不应该能够发现他们的谎言是成功的。因此, 要求孩子们 "撒谎" 的事实创造了一个假冒的情况, 这是不正常的儿童的自然说谎的情况。对撒谎的13的早期观察研究也存在类似的挑战, 这只捕获了被观察者揭穿的 "谎言"。
由西尔斯、劳和 Alpert14开创, 随后由刘易斯et 。8, 原始的诱惑抵抗范式为儿童自然主义说谎行为的生态学上有效的探索提供了方法。在这个范例中, 孩子们有机会犯下一个罪过, 例如, 被单独留在房间里, 有一个漂亮的玩具, 并指示不要偷看或玩它。由于任务对执行功能的要求很高, 年幼的孩子很难抗拒偷看或玩玩具的诱惑。因此, 当被问及他们是否偷看或玩过玩具时, 有违规的儿童有机会自发地撒谎。因此, 这种范式创造了一种情境, 来引出儿童自发的谎言, 而不是指示他们撒谎。更重要的是, 它模仿最常见的儿童谎言的性质, 通常目的是掩盖过错14。Polak 和哈里斯9进一步修改了范例, 在其中比较了允许儿童玩玩具的许可条件, 在这种情况下, 儿童被指示不碰玩具。孩子们在两种情况下的反应比较突出了一个事实, 那就是儿童有说谎的实际意图, 而不是忘记他们做了什么。
被修改的诱惑抵抗范式的最被引用的版本开始以猜测的游戏1,10,15。孩子们被指示用它在远离玩具时发出的声音来猜测玩具的身份。当他们得到正确的前两个试验, 他们将被单独留在房间里, 然后他们有机会猜测最后一个。他们被指示不要转过身去偷看。与前两个试验不同的是, 玩具的声音与玩具的特性相匹配, 最终的玩具发出的声音与身份无关, 因此, 它不太可能通过听力来猜测玩具是什么。当实验者返回时, 孩子被问到玩具是什么, 以及他/她是否偷看过。后续问题将探讨儿童的战略谎言, 以掩盖他们的罪过1,9,10,16。战略说谎是当说谎者接受谎言接受者知道和做与早先谎言一致的错误声明为了掩盖罪行4。在这种情况下, 那些错误地否认违法的人会被要求解释他们如何知道玩具的身份, 而不偷看他们是否能提供与他们最初的错误否认相一致的合理解释以避免暴露。使用这一范式的研究表明, 学龄前儿童几乎无法说出看似合理的战略谎言, 这与他们的错误否认1、9是一致的。
除了参加自然社会交流中类似的自发和真实的谎言之外, 还进一步修改了诱惑抵抗范式, 以对抗有违法证据的儿童, 争取初步谎言。埃文斯、徐和李4开发了一种进一步修改的诱惑抵抗范式, 以便在物证存在的情况下研究儿童的战略说谎行为。不同于语义泄漏控制, 保持谎言之间的一致性的能力, 战略说谎需要一个说谎者保持谎言和证据之间的一致性的谎言接受者, 在这种情况下, 不仅口头证据, 还有物证。在这个版本中, 孩子被要求猜测一个玩具的身份隐藏在一个颠倒的杯子里三次。实验者将给出线索, 确保所有孩子在前两次试验中正确地 "猜测"。随后, 孩子们被指示在最后的审判中不要偷看杯子, 而实验者则短暂离开房间。如果他们做了违背和偷看, 隐藏在杯子里的内容会溢出, 并留下物理证据, 这是很难为儿童清理。儿童被要求解释的物理证据, 如果他们拒绝偷看。此版本优于以前的协议, 是为了减少由于谎言4而跟踪他人信仰的变化而强加的认知需求。相反, 存在的犯罪物证的功能, 以提醒以前的行为, 并与儿童的谎言直接对比。这样, 孩子们只需要假装他们的意图, 作出一个合理的解释: 泄漏是一个意外, 而不是一个故意行为的结果。这是特别重要的, 因为在发展早期理解的心理状态比其他人的信念17。利用这一版本的《议定书》进行的实证研究表明, 年幼儿童能够辨别出与其违反的实际证据相一致的4年或5岁4的战略谎言。
本文介绍了最近发表的研究18中使用的诱惑电阻范式的修改版本, 详细说明了改进的程序和材料。该议定书适用于诱发2至8岁儿童的自发说谎行为。建议的年龄范围是基于对幼儿说谎行为的出现及其在这一时期的心理理解发展。孩子2岁的谎言, 和谎言的复杂程度可以说是与儿童的错误信念理解1,16。儿童在3岁至5岁之间通过一项错误信念任务19, 并在7和8岁左右通过第二次错误信念任务20。本议定书可在与儿童的社会理解和社会行为有关的发展心理学研究领域中有潜在的应用。

<table><tbody><tr><td>Camcorder</td><td>Sony</td><td>HDR-CX405</td><td>With tripod</td></tr></tbody></table>

the modified temptation resistance task: a paradigm to elicit children's strategic lie-telling

《诱惑抵抗范式议定书》旨在引出2至8岁儿童的策略性说谎行为。对越轨行为的奖赏是过于诱人而难以抗拒的, 因此可以观察到, 由于违法行为而存在不可逆转的证据, 儿童的自发谎言。在一个发展心理学实验室中, 在用隐藏摄像机录制的单向镜和视频之后, 该协议开始于一个猜谜游戏, 在那里孩子被给予三次试验, 以猜测隐藏的物体在一个倒置的杯子下的身份。实验者在前两个实验中给出提示, 以确保孩子正确地 "猜"。在期末试验开始时, 实验者短暂离开房间, 要求孩子不要偷看杯子下面。如果孩子无法抗拒诱惑和窥视, 以前装在杯子里的小颗粒就会散落在沟槽表面上。当实验者返回时, 孩子被问到是否偷看过。如果他/她否认违反了物证的存在, 他/她被要求解释为什么粒子在桌子上。三反应可以在程序中观察到, 包括最初的越轨行为, 如果孩子偷看真相或撒谎, 以及在物证面前的战略说谎行为。

上述方法由王et实现。18. 参加者有93人, 通常是在香港的本地幼稚园发展儿童 (47 男童; 年龄范围39.24 至81.48 月, 平均 (M) 年龄 = 59.76 月, 标准差 (SD) = 9.84 月)。参加者分为两组, 使用年龄截止60月。青年组由46岁以下儿童组成 (22 男孩;M = 51.60 月, SD = 6.12 月), 并且老小组由47个年龄超过5年的孩子 (25 个男孩) 组成;M = 67.7 月, SD = 4.90 月)。
<p class="jove_conten...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling at JoVE.com

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

《诱惑抵抗范式议定书》旨在引出2至8岁儿童的策略性说谎行为。对越轨行为的奖赏是过于诱人而难以抗拒的, 因此可以观察到, 由于违法行为而存在不可逆转的证据, 儿童的自发谎言。

修正诱惑力的任务: 一种诱导儿童战略说谎的范式

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children's strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of ...

the-modified-temptation-resistance-task-paradigm-to-elicit-children-s

Universidad de Cartagena UDEC

Research

JoVE Journal

Behavior

8.4K 次观看.  Shenzhen University. 《诱惑抵抗范式议定书》旨在引出2至8岁儿童的策略性说谎行为。对越轨行为的奖赏是过于诱人而难以抗拒的, 因此可以观察到, 由于违法行为而存在不可逆转的证据, 儿童的自发谎言。

视频: The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

The Crossmodal Congruency Task as a Means to Obtain an Objective Behavioral Measure in the Rubber Hand Illusion Paradigm

The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is a popular experimental paradigm. Participants view touch on an artificial rubber hand while the participants' own hidden hand is touched. If the viewed and felt touches are given at the same time then this is sufficient to induce the compelling experience that the rubber hand is one's own hand. The RHI can be used to investigate exactly how the brain constructs distinct body representations for one's own body. Such representations are crucial for successful interactions with the external world. To obtain a subjective measure of the RHI, researchers typically ask participants to rate statements such as "I felt as if the rubber hand were my hand". Here we demonstrate how the crossmodal congruency task can be used to obtain an objective behavioral measure within this paradigm.
The variant of the crossmodal congruency task we employ involves the presentation of tactile targets and visual distractors. Targets and distractors are spatially congruent (i.e. same finger) on some trials and incongruent (i.e. different finger) on others. The difference in performance between incongruent and congruent trials - the crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) - indexes multisensory interactions. Importantly, the CCE is modulated both by viewing a hand as well as the synchrony of viewed and felt touch which are both crucial factors for the RHI.
The use of the crossmodal congruency task within the RHI paradigm has several advantages. It is a simple behavioral measure which can be repeated many times and which can be obtained during the illusion while participants view the artificial hand. Furthermore, this measure is not susceptible to observer and experimenter biases. The combination of the RHI paradigm with the crossmodal congruency task allows in particular for the investigation of multisensory processes which are critical for modulations of body representations as in the RHI.

We demonstrate how an objective measure can be employed in the widely employed rubber hand illusion paradigm. This measure is obtained by modifying the well-established crossmodal congruency task. This task allows the investigation of multisensory processes which are critical for modulations of body representations as in the rubber hand illusion.

一致性的任务作为一种手段来获取目标行为的措施中的橡胶手错觉范式Crossmodal

The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is a popular experimental paradigm. Participants view touch on an artificial rubber hand while the participants' own hidden ...

科研

行为学

The 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task: A Task of Attention and Impulse Control for Rodents

This protocol describes the 5-choice serial reaction time task, which is an operant based task used to study attention and impulse control in rodents. Test day challenges, modifications to the standard task, can be used to systematically tax the neural systems controlling either attention or impulse control. Importantly, these challenges have consistent effects on behavior across laboratories in intact animals and can reveal either enhancements or deficits in cognitive function that are not apparent when rats are only tested on the standard task. The variety of behavioral measures that are collected can be used to determine if other factors (i.e., sedation, motivation deficits, locomotor impairments) are contributing to changes in performance. The versatility of the 5CSRTT is further enhanced because it is amenable to combination with pharmacological, molecular, and genetic techniques.

This protocol describes the 5-choice serial reaction time task, which is an operant based task used to study attention and impulse control in rodents. Test day challenges, which are modifications of the standard task, increase flexibility of the task and can be combined with other manipulations to more fully characterize behavior.

5选择序列反应时任务：注意的任务和脉冲控制鼠害

This protocol describes the 5-choice serial reaction time task, which is an operant based task used to study attention and impulse control in rodents. ...

Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat

Fear of certain threat and anxiety about uncertain threat are distinct emotions with unique behavioral, cognitive-attentional, and neuroanatomical components. Both anxiety and fear can be studied in the laboratory by measuring the potentiation of the startle reflex. The startle reflex is a defensive reflex that is potentiated when an organism is threatened and the need for defense is high. The startle reflex is assessed via electromyography (EMG) in the orbicularis oculi muscle elicited by brief, intense, bursts of acoustic white noise (i.e., &#8220;startle probes&#8221;). Startle potentiation is calculated as the increase in startle response magnitude during presentation of sets of visual threat cues that signal delivery of mild electric shock relative to sets of matched cues that signal the absence of shock (no-threat cues). In the Threat Probability Task, fear is measured via startle potentiation to high probability (100% cue-contingent shock; certain) threat cues whereas anxiety is measured via startle potentiation to low probability (20% cue-contingent shock; uncertain) threat cues. Measurement of startle potentiation during the Threat Probability Task provides an objective and easily implemented alternative to assessment of negative affect via self-report or other methods (e.g., neuroimaging) that may be inappropriate or impractical for some researchers. Startle potentiation has been studied rigorously in both animals (e.g., rodents, non-human primates) and humans which facilitates animal-to-human translational research. Startle potentiation during certain and uncertain threat provides an objective measure of negative affective and distinct emotional states (fear, anxiety) to use in research on psychopathology, substance use/abuse and broadly in affective science. As such, it has been used extensively by clinical scientists interested in psychopathology etiology and by affective scientists interested in individual differences in emotion.

Potentiation of the startle reflex is measured via electromyography of the orbicularis oculi muscle during low (uncertain) and high (certain) probability electric shock threat in the Threat Probability Task. This provides an objective measure of distinct negative emotional states (fear/anxiety) for research on psychopathology, substance use/abuse, and broad affective science.

使用威胁概率任务，以评估焦虑和恐惧在不确定性和一定的威胁

Fear of certain threat and anxiety about uncertain threat are distinct emotions with unique behavioral, cognitive-attentional, and neuroanatomical ...

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting false testimonies and interviewing children have restricted the generalizability of the findings. The primary aim of the current study is to provide an easy-to-administer and ecologically valid method for measuring the veracity and quality of school-aged children's (ages 6-11) testimonies when they are asked to provide different types of true and false reports. Moreover, the methodology enables researchers to examine the social and developmental factors that could influence the credibility of a child's testimony. In the current study, children will witness a theft, and are then asked to either falsely deny the transgression, falsely accuse a researcher of the theft, or tell the truth. Afterwards, children are to be interviewed by a second researcher using a thorough and ecologically valid interview protocol that requires children to provide closed-ended and free-recall responses about the events with the instigator (E1). Coders then evaluate the length and number of theft-related details the children give throughout the interview, as well as their ability to maintain their true and false reports. The representative results indicate that the truth and lie-telling conditions elicit the intended behaviors from the children. The open-ended interview questions encouraged children to provide free-recall information about their experiences with E1. Moreover, findings from the closed-ended questions suggest that children are significantly better at maintaining their lies with age, and when producing a false denial compared to a false accusation. Results from the current study can be used to develop a greater understanding of the characteristics of children's true and false testimonies about crime, which can potentially benefit law enforcement, legal staff and professionals who interview children.

The current methodology is designed to provide an ecologically relevant approach for measuring the veracity, length and quality of children's true and false testimonies. Implications of the current methodology for future research and professionals who interview children will also be discussed.

儿童能够提供有关犯罪虚假报告的实验分析

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting ...

Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children

Self-distancing (i.e., creating mental distance between the self and a stimulus by adopting a less egocentric perspective) has been studied as a way to improve adolescents' and adults' emotion regulation. These studies instruct adolescents and adults to use visual imagery or language to create distance from the self before engaging in self-regulation tasks and when thinking about past and future events. For example, adults are asked to recall past, negative emotional experiences from either a first-person perspective (no distance) or a third-person perspective (self-distanced). These studies show that a self-distanced perspective allows adults to cope more adaptively when recalling negative feelings. However, the self-distancing paradigm used with adults was not developmentally appropriate for young children. This modified self-distancing paradigm involves instructing children to think about their thoughts, feelings, and actions from different perspectives that vary in their distance from the self while completing a self-regulation task. The paradigm involves randomly assigning children to use one of three perspectives: self-immersed, third-person, or exemplar. In the self-immersed condition, children are asked to think about themselves using the first-person perspective (e.g., "How am I feeling?") and no distance is created from the self. In the third-person condition, children are asked to create distance from the self by using the third-person perspective (e.g., "How is [child's name] feeling?"). In the exemplar condition, the greatest distance from the self is created by asking children to pretend to be a media character and to think about that character's thoughts and feelings (e.g., "How is Batman feeling?"). Studies using the self-distancing paradigm with 4-6-year-olds have found that as the amount of distance from the self increases (self-immersed &lt; third-person &lt; exemplar), children perform better on self-regulation tasks. These findings suggest that the strategies implemented in the self-distancing protocol may be useful to include in self-regulation interventions for young children.

An experimental paradigm was created to measure the effects of self-distancing in young children (4-6-year-olds). Self-distancing is a process through which individuals adopt a less egocentric perspective. This paradigm has been used to examine the effects of self-distancing on young children&#39;s self-regulation.

衡量幼儿自距离效应的实验范式

Self-distancing (i.e., creating mental distance between the self and a stimulus by adopting a less egocentric perspective) has been studied as a way to ...

Marginal Dishonesty: The Adding-to-10 Task

Source: Julian Wills &#38; Jay Van Bavel&#8212;New York University
Classical economic theory asserts that people are rational and self-interested. In addition to seeking wealth and status, people are motivated by other goals. As a result, financial motives can sometimes be dwarfed by other internal needs, such as maintaining a positive self-concept or affiliating with other group members. 
Ethical dilemmas, such as the temptation to cheat on taxes, can result when these motives are in conflict. On the one hand, people may be tempted to save money by underreporting their taxable income. On the other hand, no one wants to perceive themselves as a dishonest, free-rider. As a result, people are reluctant to fully exploit unethical opportunities because doing so can severely undermine their self-image as morally upstanding individuals. Instead, people cheat to a much smaller degree than they are capable of: just enough to gain additional resources, but not so much as to compromise their self-image. 
This tendency for marginal dishonesty, or the "fudge factor," is an important principle in social psychology and can be tested through a variety of techniques. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely originally described six separate experiments involving (dis)honesty and a theory of self-concept maintenance.1 The "Adding-to-10 Task" is one of the experimental techniques discussed and is prevalent in research that involves testing honesty. This video demonstrates how to produce and interpret the Adding-to-10 Task.

边际不诚实: 添加 10 任务

Source: Julian Wills &#38; Jay Van Bavel&#8212;New York University
Classical economic theory asserts that people are rational and self-interested. In ...

教育

JoVE Science Education

心理学

社会心理学

Executive Function and the Dimensional Change Card Sort Task

Source: Laboratories of Nicholaus Noles and Judith Danovitch&#8212;University of Louisville
Infants are born with amazing cognitive resources at their disposal, but they don&#8217;t know how to use them effectively. In order to harness the power of their brains, humans must develop high-level cognitive processes that manage basic brain functions. These processes make up what psychologists refer to as executive function. Executive function is a key factor in many self-regulatory behaviors, including forming plans to solve problems, negotiating between desires and actions, and directing attention. For example, a child must use several executive processes to stop playing with toys and start cleaning their room. These processes include inhibition (to stop what they&#8217;re doing), planning (to determine what actions need to be performed to clean the room), and attentional control (to stay on task until the cleaning is done). A breakdown of executive function during any of these steps would lead to the room remaining dirty.
Developing executive function is one of the key challenges faced by children as they mature. Some elements of executive function can only be mastered with practice, and brain areas linked to executive function, specifically the prefrontal cortex, develop slowly throughout development, continuing to grow and organize until an individual reaches their twenties. Early demonstrations of executive function have been linked to self-control and behavioral outcomes in children, as well as successes later in life. Relatedly, executive function is impaired in children diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders.
This experiment demonstrates how to assess executive function in children using the Dimensional Change Card Sort Task, developed by Dr. Philip Zelazo and colleagues.1

Dimensional Change Card Sort Task and Executive Function in Children

执行功能和尺寸变化卡排序任务

Source: Laboratories of Nicholaus Noles and Judith Danovitch&#8212;University of Louisville
Infants are born with amazing cognitive resources at their ...

发展心理学

Piaget's Conservation Task and the Influence of Task Demands

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
Jean Piaget was a pioneer in the field of developmental psychology, and his theory of cognitive development is one of the most well-known psychological theories. At the heart of Piaget&#8217;s theory is the idea that children&#8217;s ways of thinking change over the course of childhood. Piaget provided evidence for these changes by comparing how children of different ages responded to questions and problems that he designed.
Piaget believed that at age 5, children lack mental operators or logical rules, which underlie the ability to reason about relationships between sets of properties. This characteristic defined what he called the preoperational stage of cognitive development. One of Piaget&#8217;s classic measures of children&#8217;s ability to use mental operations is his conservation task. In this task, children are shown two identical objects or sets of objects. Children are first shown that the objects are the same on one key property (number, size, volume, etc.). Then, one of the objects is modified so it appears different than the other one (e.g., it is now longer, wider, or taller), but the key property remains the same. Following this transformation, children are asked to judge if the two objects or sets of objects are now the same or different with respect to the original key property.
Piaget reported that children in the preoperational stage (approximately ages 2-7) typically judged the objects to be different after the transformation, even though the key property had not changed. He attributed children&#8217;s incorrect responses to their excessive focus on the change, rather than on the fact that the key property remained the same. However, over the years, researchers have argued that Piaget&#8217;s conservation task is an invalid measure of children&#8217;s reasoning skills. These critics have suggested that children&#8217;s poor performance is due to task demands, such as assumptions about the experimenter&#8217;s goals and expectations when the question about the key property is repeated.
This video demonstrates how to conduct Piaget&#8217;s classic conservation task,1&#8211;2 and how a small modification in the task design can dramatically change children&#8217;s accuracy (based on the methods developed by McGarrigle and Donaldson3).

Piaget&#039;s Conservation Task and the Influence of Task Demands

皮亚杰的守恒任务和任务需求的影响

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
Jean Piaget was a pioneer in the field of developmental ...

Measuring Children's Trust in Testimony

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
How does a person learn about the world around them? One way is through direct observation and exploration. However, not every piece of information can be observed firsthand. Instead, a person must often rely on other people as information sources. This is particularly true for children who have so many questions about the world around them, yet have limited means of accessing the answers. Thus, children must rely on other people to provide answers to their questions.
There is a popular viewpoint that children are gullible and that they believe everything they hear. However, recent research has shown this is not the case. Children as young as age 3 evaluate what other people say and show selective trust in other people&#8217;s testimony. Children pay attention to and use their knowledge about an individual&#8217;s prior behavior and characteristics to judge whether that individual is a trustworthy informational source. &#160;
This video demonstrates how to measure children&#8217;s trust in testimony based on methods developed by Birch, Vauthier, and Bloom1 and Koenig, Clement, and Harris.2&#160;

Measuring Children&#039;s Trust in Testimony

测量在证词中孩子们的信任

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
How does a person learn about the world around them? One way ...

Memory Development: Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people and events they encounter in their lives. Thus, creating, storing, and recalling memories are essential elements of the human experience. However, memory, as adults experience it, takes time to develop. Although young children can learn facts and remember details of their lives from moment-to-moment and day-to-day, they do not create autobiographical memories or detailed memories of events that happen in their lives until age 3 or older.
Even after age 3, children&#8217;s memories differ from those of adults in important ways. Children are less effective at evaluating their own memories than adults, which makes it difficult for them to determine, for example, whether or not their memories are accurate. False memories are a problem for both children and adults, as it is quite easy to create a false memory with a poorly-worded question or a story repeated over and over. However, young children are more susceptible to creating false memories than either older children or adults.
This video demonstrates children&#8217;s vulnerability to false memories using a method developed by Steven Ceci and his collaborators.1-2

Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

内存发展: 展示如何反复质疑导致虚假记忆

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people ...