成人撒谎的可接受性及其与其他人格构念的关系

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Psychiatry international Pub Date : 2023-03-21 DOI:10.3390/psychiatryint4010009
Anthony Quinn, J. Grant, S. Chamberlain
{"title":"成人撒谎的可接受性及其与其他人格构念的关系","authors":"Anthony Quinn, J. Grant, S. Chamberlain","doi":"10.3390/psychiatryint4010009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lying is seemingly common in daily life, but it is scarcely researched despite its possible relevance to understanding a range of pathological behaviors and associated deception. Our aim was to investigate whether the acceptability of lying might indicate other personality constructs by analyzing a variety of questionnaire responses collected from a cross-sectional sample (n = 138). Total scores for lying acceptability were moderately associated with Machiavellianism and with functional impairment due to lying at work, in social settings, and at home. Scores for these tests were not closely associated with problematic usage of the internet, self-esteem, or religious activity/religiosity. Three distinct groupings produced by a multidimensional scale informed us of how lying might be better understood as an explanatory mechanism for compulsive behaviors. We also noted possible avenues for future research into the acceptability of lying and deception.","PeriodicalId":93808,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Acceptability of Lying and Its Relationship with Other Personality Constructs among a Sample of Adults\",\"authors\":\"Anthony Quinn, J. Grant, S. Chamberlain\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/psychiatryint4010009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Lying is seemingly common in daily life, but it is scarcely researched despite its possible relevance to understanding a range of pathological behaviors and associated deception. Our aim was to investigate whether the acceptability of lying might indicate other personality constructs by analyzing a variety of questionnaire responses collected from a cross-sectional sample (n = 138). Total scores for lying acceptability were moderately associated with Machiavellianism and with functional impairment due to lying at work, in social settings, and at home. Scores for these tests were not closely associated with problematic usage of the internet, self-esteem, or religious activity/religiosity. Three distinct groupings produced by a multidimensional scale informed us of how lying might be better understood as an explanatory mechanism for compulsive behaviors. We also noted possible avenues for future research into the acceptability of lying and deception.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry international\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint4010009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint4010009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

撒谎在日常生活中似乎很常见,但它几乎没有研究,尽管它可能与理解一系列病理行为和相关的欺骗有关。我们的目的是通过分析从横截面样本(n = 138)收集的各种问卷回答,调查撒谎的可接受性是否可能表明其他人格结构。谎言可接受性的总分与马基雅维利主义和工作、社交和家庭中因撒谎而造成的功能障碍有中度关联。这些测试的分数与有问题的互联网使用、自尊或宗教活动/宗教虔诚度没有密切联系。由多维尺度产生的三种不同的分组告诉我们如何更好地理解说谎作为强迫行为的解释机制。我们还指出了未来研究谎言和欺骗的可接受性的可能途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Acceptability of Lying and Its Relationship with Other Personality Constructs among a Sample of Adults
Lying is seemingly common in daily life, but it is scarcely researched despite its possible relevance to understanding a range of pathological behaviors and associated deception. Our aim was to investigate whether the acceptability of lying might indicate other personality constructs by analyzing a variety of questionnaire responses collected from a cross-sectional sample (n = 138). Total scores for lying acceptability were moderately associated with Machiavellianism and with functional impairment due to lying at work, in social settings, and at home. Scores for these tests were not closely associated with problematic usage of the internet, self-esteem, or religious activity/religiosity. Three distinct groupings produced by a multidimensional scale informed us of how lying might be better understood as an explanatory mechanism for compulsive behaviors. We also noted possible avenues for future research into the acceptability of lying and deception.
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
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Role of Dark Personality Traits in Embitterment–Jealousy Dynamics: Insights from a Multi-Scale Analysis and Moderation Effects Modifications to Enhance Outcomes of Family-Based Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa: A Scoping Review How Moral Distress Contributes to Depression Varies by Gender in a Sample of Sub-Saharan African Nurses Violence and Child Mental Health Outcomes in Iraq: Mapping Vulnerable Areas Tangram Puzzles in Patients with Neurocognitive Disorders: A Pilot Study
×
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