对关系一致性和规则遵循的分析:一致的说谎者比偶尔说真话的人更受欢迎。

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1002/jeab.907
Jesús Alonso-Vega, Colin Harte, Dermot Barnes-Holmes
{"title":"对关系一致性和规则遵循的分析:一致的说谎者比偶尔说真话的人更受欢迎。","authors":"Jesús Alonso-Vega,&nbsp;Colin Harte,&nbsp;Dermot Barnes-Holmes","doi":"10.1002/jeab.907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The current study explored the influence of different levels of speaker coherence on rule following and speaker preference. In Experiment 1, rules provided by three different speakers were either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or 50% accurate/inaccurate. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the speaker's coherence was adjusted to 80% accurate, 20% accurate, and 50% accurate/inaccurate, respectively. Overall, participants tended to follow coherent speaker rules and avoid following incoherent speaker rules during training and testing phases. The results also indicated that following and not following rules provided by speakers may be generalizable to novel stimuli and maintained in the absence of differential reinforcement (i.e., in experimental test phases). Additionally, in a preference test, participants tended to prefer coherent over incoherent and partially coherent speakers. Furthermore, participants tended to prefer the relatively more incoherent speaker (i.e., 0% or 20% accurate) over the 50% accurate coherent speaker in both experiments. Finally, a comparison of the results of both experiments indicated that different levels of relational coherence affected the variability of rule-following and speaker preference behaviors. These findings are discussed in the context of the complexities that appear to be involved in rule-following behaviors and speaker preference.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeab.907","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyses of relational coherence and rule following: Consistent liars are preferred over occasional truth tellers\",\"authors\":\"Jesús Alonso-Vega,&nbsp;Colin Harte,&nbsp;Dermot Barnes-Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jeab.907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The current study explored the influence of different levels of speaker coherence on rule following and speaker preference. In Experiment 1, rules provided by three different speakers were either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or 50% accurate/inaccurate. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the speaker's coherence was adjusted to 80% accurate, 20% accurate, and 50% accurate/inaccurate, respectively. Overall, participants tended to follow coherent speaker rules and avoid following incoherent speaker rules during training and testing phases. The results also indicated that following and not following rules provided by speakers may be generalizable to novel stimuli and maintained in the absence of differential reinforcement (i.e., in experimental test phases). Additionally, in a preference test, participants tended to prefer coherent over incoherent and partially coherent speakers. Furthermore, participants tended to prefer the relatively more incoherent speaker (i.e., 0% or 20% accurate) over the 50% accurate coherent speaker in both experiments. Finally, a comparison of the results of both experiments indicated that different levels of relational coherence affected the variability of rule-following and speaker preference behaviors. These findings are discussed in the context of the complexities that appear to be involved in rule-following behaviors and speaker preference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeab.907\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.907\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.907","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了不同程度的说话者连贯性对规则遵循和说话者偏好的影响。在实验 1 中,由三个不同说话者提供的规则要么是 100% 准确,要么是 0% 准确,要么是 50% 准确/不准确。实验 2 与实验 1 相似,只是说话者的连贯度分别调整为 80%准确、20% 准确和 50%准确/不准确。总体而言,在训练和测试阶段,参与者倾向于遵循连贯的说话者规则,而避免遵循不连贯的说话者规则。研究结果还表明,遵循和不遵循说话者提供的规则可能会对新刺激产生普遍影响,并且在没有差异强化的情况下(即在实验测试阶段)仍能保持。此外,在偏好测试中,与不连贯和部分连贯的说话者相比,参与者倾向于偏好连贯的说话者。此外,在两次实验中,相对于准确率为 50%的连贯说话者,参与者倾向于更喜欢不连贯说话者(即准确率为 0% 或 20%)。最后,对两个实验结果的比较表明,不同程度的关系一致性会影响规则遵循和说话者偏好行为的变化。我们将结合规则遵循行为和说话者偏好所涉及的复杂性来讨论这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Analyses of relational coherence and rule following: Consistent liars are preferred over occasional truth tellers

The current study explored the influence of different levels of speaker coherence on rule following and speaker preference. In Experiment 1, rules provided by three different speakers were either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or 50% accurate/inaccurate. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the speaker's coherence was adjusted to 80% accurate, 20% accurate, and 50% accurate/inaccurate, respectively. Overall, participants tended to follow coherent speaker rules and avoid following incoherent speaker rules during training and testing phases. The results also indicated that following and not following rules provided by speakers may be generalizable to novel stimuli and maintained in the absence of differential reinforcement (i.e., in experimental test phases). Additionally, in a preference test, participants tended to prefer coherent over incoherent and partially coherent speakers. Furthermore, participants tended to prefer the relatively more incoherent speaker (i.e., 0% or 20% accurate) over the 50% accurate coherent speaker in both experiments. Finally, a comparison of the results of both experiments indicated that different levels of relational coherence affected the variability of rule-following and speaker preference behaviors. These findings are discussed in the context of the complexities that appear to be involved in rule-following behaviors and speaker preference.

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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
期刊最新文献
Experience with reduced-nicotine cigarettes and whether this decreases smoking and substitution for full-nicotine cigarettes. Zoographics in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: Increasing inclusion of female animals. Ecological momentary assessment of delay discounting, reward valuation, and craving in very light cigarette users. Evaluation of resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior with and without extinction in a human operant model. Avoidance of hot air blast in Rattus norvegicus.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1