本研究は、香港大学補助金委員会の一般的な研究基金 (845211) 対応する著者に与えられると深セン大学研究助成 (85302-000173) 最初の著者に与えられるによって賄われていた。データ収集ありがとう Ms エスターちゃんと子どもと家族は、私たちの研究に参加しました。

ここで説明したすべてのメソッドは、によって、人間研究倫理委員会 (HREC) 香港の教育、大学の承認されています。それぞれの子の親または保護者から書面によるインフォームド コンセントを取得します。
1. イントロダクションとウォーム アップ
<ol><li>発達心理学研究室に、子と親を紹介します。ビデオ録画または一方向ミラーの後ろに隣接する展望室の隠しビデオカメラを子供が見つからないことを確認します。子供サイズのテーブルで実験者の隣に座って、個々 の子をみましょう。</li>
	<li>身近で快適な環境と実験者とを取得する子供のための十分な時間を許可します。</li>
	<li>最も望ましいものを選択する子供のための 3 の魅力的な贈り物を提供してください。最も望ましいギフトは、以下推測ゲームの勝者の報酬を子供に教えてください。</li>
	<li>「後述する」子供親の言うことを聞かせて。一方向のミラーの後ろにテスト セッションを観察する隣接する観察室のアシスタントに参加する親を招待します。</li>
</ol>2. 推測ゲーム
<ol><li>不透明な逆さまカップ事前に溝付きプレート上に配置に隠されたオブジェクトの 3 つのセットを準備し、子供の視力からそれらを保ちます。おもちゃの車などはピンポン球の最初の 2 セットで 1 つのおもちゃを隠します。お米 3 カップを埋めるし、逆さま溝付きプレート上に配置します。偶発的な流出を防ぐために注意を払って米カップを処理します。</li>
	<li>実験者と推測ゲームをプレイする子供を招待:「推測ゲームをプレイしよう」溝付きプレートに逆さまに配置されているカップを紹介します。子供の言う:「カップで非表示オブジェクトがあります。あなたは必要それが正しくこのゲームに勝つための 3 つの連続した試験を推測します。</li>
	<li>最初の 2 つの試験では、ピンポン玉の「推測」に正しくたとえば「は路上走行車」のおもちゃの車、または「卓球パドルで再生できるもの何ですか? 子供のため関連する手がかりを与えます。2 つの連続した勝利の子を祝福します。</li>
	<li>最後の審判に隠されたご飯とカップを提示します。子と言う前に子供の最も望ましいギフトをプッシュ:「今、我々 は推測ゲーム最後ラウンドをプレーしていますいます。一番に好きなこの贈り物が表示されますこの 1 つを正しく推測する場合しかしそれは間違って推測する場合、あなたはそれを得ることはありません"。</li>
	<li>アシスタントは、この正確な瞬間には、研究室のドアをノックしてしばらく部屋を終了する実験者を求めます。</li>
	<li>子供の言う:「ピークにカップを持ち上げてはいけない。私に帰ってきます。」その後、部屋を出る。</li>
</ol>3. 罪
注: 3 番目のカップで米はだろう子カップを持ち上げる場合にプレートの散布図です。プレートに織り目加工の溝罪の物理的な証拠を残して、子供がこぼしたご飯を完全に削除できなくなります。
<ol><li>一方向のミラーの後ろに子どもの行動を観察します。子供はピークする場合、は、実験者が部屋を出る瞬間と子供をピークに開始時間を記録します。</li>
	<li>子供がピークを開始後 3 分で子供がピークない場合または 1 分後部屋に戻る。</li>
</ol>4. 嘘動作
<ol><li>子供を頼む:「行った、間でしたするカップを持ち上げ中身を確認する?"、、対応する子を待つ。<ol>
<li>子が覗くない子供に依頼してカップの中だし、カップの内容を明らかにする場合、手順 6 に進みます。</li>
		<li>子供の言う、「それだったピーク、するのは難しいね」子供が覗く罪を認めている場合、手順 6 に進みます。</li>
		<li>つまり、子供が覗くが、ピークについてある、彼/彼女は ' No」、罪の明白な物理的な証拠にもかかわらず回答こぼしたご飯を見てし、言う:「どうしてご飯はカップの外か」、と子供にお願い: '' あなた李をしていないことを確認してft して、何が入っていたカップ?」と対応する子を待ちます。</li>
	</ol>
</li>
</ol>5. 戦略的な嘘
<ol><li>子告白、彼または彼女覗く、子供の言う場合 'それだったピーク、するは難しいね」、手順 6 に進みます。</li>
	<li>上記の手順後に覗くことを拒否する子が引き続き発生する場合はフォロー アップの質問をする: ' だから米はどうやってカップからか?」と対応する子を待ちます。</li>
</ol>6. 報告会
<ol><li>子供の感想を聞きます。これはただのゲームをピークまたはそれは非常に魅力的なのでこのゲームでうそをつくこども達はことを子供に言います。誘惑抵抗タスクで彼/彼女の応答に関係なくセッションの終わりに各子供の約束のギフトを与えます。</li>
	<li>親を報告します。プロトコルがピークと横臥の子供や約半分子供ピークまたは嘘の行動を引き出すために特に設計されている親に知らせます。洗練された認知の発達と社会的行動は、これらの動作を反映し、具体的には、負の値またはこのコンテキストのいたずらはみなされない親に説明します。</li>
</ol>7 データ処理およびコーディング
注: 採点者間信頼性はすべて述べられる符号化応答のために確立する必要があります。
<ol><li>ビデオ記録子供の言語反応符号化のためそのままを書き写します。</li>
	<li>採点者間信頼性を確立するためのすべての観測値の少なくとも 20% を 2 つの独立したプログラマーにコードを確認します。</li>
	<li>戦略的な位置のコーディング、観測のビデオ録画を見る意図の関与を識別に対する子どもの反応のトラン スクリプトを参照してください。</li>
	<li>ディスカッションを通して 2 つの独立したプログラマー間の不一致を解決します。 注: カップを持ち上げるでしたいない子どもは、非 peekers、単にカップに触れた者を含むとしてコードされてカップを持ち上げた人の子供たちは、 peekersと見なされます。Peekersは真実テラーズ(ピークを認めた人) と嘘つき(ピークを拒否した者) としてさらにコーディングされます。散乱の米のための嘘つきの説明はさらに戦略的な嘘と戦略的な嘘にコーディングされます。戦略的な嘘がもっともらしいと意思を参照してください (例えば、「カップを触っただけが出てきた米」).戦略性のない嘘は、信頼性に欠けるし、苦し紛れな説明を含める (例えば'米出て単独で」)、自動応答と「私は知らない」.子供は詳細レベルの罪と嘘に基づく 4 つのグループに分類されます:非 peekers、真実テラーズ、非戦略的な嘘つきと戦略的な嘘つき。
</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>

著者が明らかに何もありません。

この資料で詳細なプロトコルでは、子供の自発嘘行動実験の設定を調査する研究者をことができます。それは自分たちの悪行について主なうそをつくだけでなく、自分たちの悪行をカバーするための証拠に直面しより高度な戦略的の嘘をつくことも子供たちを提供します。
手順とアイテムの選択に関連する適応でこのプロトコルを実装する際の考慮事項のいくつか。研?...

この変更された誘惑抵抗プロトコルの全体的な目標は、意図的に設計された実験室の設定で子どもの自然主義的な嘘の行動を誘発することです。子どもの嘘行動、社会開発の重要な側面として何十年も研究関心の焦点となっています。嘘は、人または別の人またはグループの1グループ 1 つの虚偽の陳述の意図的な配信として定義されます。自分の悪行を隠すために嘘について、最も一般的な詐欺の子供2、展示の初期の形が子供と大人の両方の3者が表示されて非常に否定的。自分のそむきの罪の4の結果からそれらを保護することによって、窓口の利益にかなう嘘のこのタイプが、それは信頼に違反違反情報等値5の仮定によってコミュニケーションのルールを破る。しばしば反社会的行動の一種として表示、重要な社会的スキル6では、横になっているが、その出現に自分の保全を確保するための複雑な社会状況に対処するに子供の柔軟性を反映しています。したがって、参加児童の自発的な嘘行動実験室の設定でだけでなく子供の嘘の深さで、自体社会的行動としての開発を調査する研究を有効に、認知の調査ができます。幼少時に嘘の行動の社会的相関性。
幼児の嘘は、長い時間7研究注目を集めている、しかし自発的な嘘についての重要な進歩だけ可能になった革新的な実験法の開発と最近数十年で1,4,8,9,,1011である自発的に子供を求める状況を作成します。以前の研究は、嘘の秘密の性質が反映していない事実12に特定の「嘘」に子供を尋ねた。リスナーが嘘つきは彼または彼女を欺くために試みていることするはずはない不正行為は、嘘リスナー必要があります成功するために嘘を検出することができません。こうして「嘘」の事実について子供たちを求めて子供の自然な嘘シナリオからは逸脱である偽造の状況を作成します。似たような課題も嘘13、観察者によって否定された「嘘」にのみキャプチャの観測的研究以前に存在していた。
・ アルパート、ラウ、シアーズの14その後ルイスらの先駆者8、元の誘惑抵抗パラダイムは、児童の自然主義的な嘘行動の生態学的有効な探査のためのメソッドを提供します。このパラダイムで子供たちが機会を与え、罪をコミットするたとえば、魅力的なグッズを部屋に残したまま、ピークまたはそれを再生しないように指示されています。タスクの実行機能の需要が高いをピークまたは、おもちゃで遊ぶ誘惑に抵抗する若い子供のため難しい。その結果、ピークまたはおもちゃで遊んでいるかどうかを尋ねられたとき犯したが子どもは自発的にうそをつく機会を持っています。したがって、パラダイムは、嘘をつくことを指示するのではなく子どもの自発的な嘘を誘発するような状況を作成します。もっと重要なは、最も一般的なの子供の嘘は、通常14悪行を隠すために目的の性質を模倣します。パラダイムは、ポラックとハリス9、彼らが子供が、子供がおもちゃに触れないように指示された法外な条件でおもちゃで遊ぶことが寛容な条件を比較してによってさらに変更されました。2 つの条件で子供たちの反応の間のコントラストは、子供たちが何かを忘れているのではなく、嘘を実際の意図を持っていたという事実を強調しました。
変更された誘惑抵抗パラダイムの最も引用されたバージョンが推測ゲーム1,10,15で始まります。子供たちは、おもちゃから面をしながらそれが作る音でおもちゃのアイデンティティを推測するように指示されます。彼らは最初の 2 つの試験を正しく取得、彼らは左だけの部屋の最後の 1 つを推測するチャンスを有する前に。彼らはピークに好転しないよう指示されます。おもちゃを作る音がおもちゃのアイデンティティを一致させる最初の 2 つの試験とは異なり最終的なグッズは id に関連する音になります、したがって、単にリスニングでおもちゃを推測する考えにくい。実験者の時に戻り、子供は頼まれるおもちゃが何か、彼/彼女が覗いているかどうか。フォロー アップの質問は、子供たちの戦略的な嘘の罪1,9,10,16をカバーするため探索でしょう。戦略的な嘘は、嘘・ テラーを考慮知っている嘘受信者を受け取り、虚偽の陳述前嘘で一貫性のある悪行4をカバーするためにする行為です。この場合、虚偽罪を否定する人は、どのように彼らは彼らがさらされることを避けるために彼らの最初の偽の拒否と一貫した説得力のある説明を提供できるかどうかをテストするのにはピークなしおもちゃのアイデンティティを知っている説明を求めでしょう。パラダイムのこのバージョンを採用の研究は、就学前の子供ができたほとんど罪1,9の偽拒否と一貫した説得力のある戦略的な嘘をつくことを示唆しました。
海進初期の隠蔽を参加させることの物理的な証拠の子供に直面する自然な社会的な交換のそれらのような自然で本物の嘘を入隊、に加えて誘惑抵抗パラダイムがさらに変更されました。嘘。誘惑抵抗パラダイムのさらに修正版は、戦略的な嘘の物理的な証拠の存在下で児童の行動を調べる・ エヴァンス、徐、李の4によって開発されました。意味漏れ制御とは異なり、間の一貫性を維持する能力のある、戦略的な嘘嘘占い師の嘘と嘘受信者にこの場合は、口頭だけでなく証拠との整合性を維持するために必要があります。証拠も物的証拠。このバージョンで子供は 3 回のカップを逆さまに隠されたおもちゃのアイデンティティを推測する求められます。実験者は最初の 2 つの試験で正しく推測する」「すべての子供を確保するための手がかりを与えるでしょう。その後、子供たちは、実験者が簡単に部屋を去る、最後の審判でカップ下を覗き見するないよう指示されます。彼らは越えないでし、ピーク、カップに隠されたコンテンツが流出をクリーンアップする子供たちにとっては難しい物理的な証拠を残します。子供彼らはピークを拒否されている場合、物理的な証拠を説明するメッセージが表示されます。以前のプロトコル上のこのバージョンの利点は、ある4の結果として他の人の信念の変更の追跡によって課せられた認知の需要を減らすことです。代わりに、罪の物理的な証拠の存在以前の動作のリマインダーとして機能し、直接子供の嘘とは対照的します。偽の説得力のある説明をするために彼らの意図するだけで子供たちは方法を: 流出は意図的な行為の結果ではなく事故だった。考えると他の人の信念17よりも開発初期バージョンで意図の心的状態を理解、これは特に重要。幼児戦略にある一貫して彼らの罪の物理的な証拠によって 4- または 5 年年齢4を伝えることができるプロトコルのこのバージョンを使用しての実証研究を示します。
洗練された手順と材料詳細の最近発行された研究18で使用される誘惑抵抗パラダイムの変更したバージョンを紹介します。プロトコルは、2-8 年古い子供の自発的な嘘行動を引き出すことに適しています。推奨年齢は、幼児やこの期間中に彼らの精神状態について開発での動作を言って嘘の出現に基づいています。若い 2 歳の嘘、嘘の洗練されたレベルとしての子ども、間違いなく子どもの誤った信念1,16を理解しています。子供の間 3- と - の 5 年年齢19、最初順序の誤信念課題を渡すし、周り第 2 順序の誤信念課題を渡す年齢20の 7 と 8 年。導入されたプロトコルは、子どもの社会認識と社会的行動に関する発達心理学研究の分野で潜在的に使用できます。

<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

誘惑抵抗パラダイムのためのプロトコルは、2-8 年齢児童の戦略的な嘘行動を引き出すために設計されました。罪の報酬は子供の自発的嘘罪により不可逆的な証拠の存在下で行動を観察できる、あまりにも誘惑に抵抗、なるように意図していた。ワンウェイ ミラーと隠しビデオカメラで撮影された映像の背後に発達心理学の研究室で実施し、プロトコルを子がカップを逆さまの下で隠されたオブジェクトのアイデンティティを推測するための 3 つの試験を与えられる推測ゲームを開始します。実験者は、子ども""それら正しく推測を確認する最初の 2 つの試験でヒントを与えます。最終試験の初めに、実験者は余地を簡潔とカップ下を覗き見するない子を頼みます。子供は、誘惑とピークには抵抗できなかった、以前カップでいっぱいの小さな粒子は表面に溝に散る。実験者の時に戻り、子供は頼まれる彼/彼女が覗くかどうか。彼/彼女は、物理的な証拠の存在に反して罪を拒否した場合、彼/彼女はテーブルの上の粒子が理由を説明頼まれます。3 つの応答は、最初の罪、子が覗く場合動作は真実や嘘や物的証拠の存在下での戦略的な嘘行動を含むプロシージャで観察できます。

上記のメソッドは王らによって実装されました18。 被験者は香港のローカルの幼稚園から通常発展途上子供たち 93 (47 男の子; 年齢範囲に 81.48 39.24 ヶ月、平均 (M) 年齢 59.76 ヶ月、標準偏差 (SD) を = = 9.84 ヶ月)。参加者は、60 ヶ月の年齢カットオフを使用して 2 つのグループに分けられました。若いグループで構成されていた 46 子供若くより 5 ?...

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

誘惑抵抗パラダイムのためのプロトコルは、2-8 年齢児童の戦略的な嘘行動を引き出すために設計されました。罪の報酬は子供の自発的嘘罪により不可逆的な証拠の存在下で行動を観察できる、あまりにも誘惑に抵抗、なるように意図していた。

変更された誘惑抵抗タスク: 子供の戦略的な嘘を引き出すためにパラダイム

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 ビュー.  Shenzhen University. 誘惑抵抗パラダイムのためのプロトコルは、2-8 年齢児童の戦略的な嘘行動を引き出すために設計されました。罪の報酬は子供の自発的嘘罪により不可逆的な証拠の存在下で行動を観察できる、あまりにも誘惑に抵抗、なるように意図していた。

ビデオ: 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.

ラバーハンドイリュージョンパラダイムにおける客観行動測定値を得るための手段としてクロスモーダル一致タスク

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

行動学

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  - 選択肢シリアル反応時間タスク：げっ歯類のための注意のタスクや衝動調節

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.

脅威の確率タスクを使用すると、不確実かつ特定の脅威の間に不安と恐怖を評価するために

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.

犯罪について虚偽の報告を提供するために、子どもの能力の実験的解析

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.

幼児における自己隔離の効果を測定するための実験的パラダイム

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.

辺縁不正: 10 に追加タスク

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

Education

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

遂行機能と寸法変化カード並べ替えタスク

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

発達心理学

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

ピアジェの保全タスクとタスクの要求の影響

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

証言の子供の信頼を測定

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

メモリの開発: 実証偽りの記憶をどのように繰り返し尋問リード

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