心理學(xué)畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯--兒童的真假話概念到行為的研究

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　部分原文：</b></p><p>　　Lying and Truth-Telling in Children: From Concept to Action</p><p>　　Fen Xu, Beijing Normal Universit

2、y</p><p>　　Xuehua Bao, Zhejiang University</p><p>　　Genyue Fu, Zhejiang Normal University</p><p>　　Victoria Talwar, McGill University</p><p>　　Kang Lee, University of T

3、oronto, Canada & University of California, San Diego</p><p>　　Lying is a common social phenomenon. It occurs regularly in various. For children, there are two types of lies that are of great importance d

4、uring their socialization. One type is the lies that violate moral rules as they are typically told to benefit oneself at the expense of others. As a result of the antisocial nature of this type of lie, it is universally

5、 discouraged by children’s caregivers and teachers from a very early age. The other type of lies are those that are told with an intention </p><p>　　There has been extensive research on the development of ly

6、ing which dates back to the beginning of developmental psychology (e.g., Binet, 1896; Darwin, 1877; Piaget, 1932). This long-standing interest in this topic is a result of the fact that lying can serve as a window into m

7、any aspects of children’s developing minds, for example, intelligence (Binet, 1896; Lewis, 1993), theory of mind (Chandler, Fritz, & Hala, 1989; Leekam, 1993; Peskin, 1992; Peterson, 1995; Peterson, & </p>

8、<p>　　Seeto, 1983; Polak & Harris, 1999; Sodian, 1991; Talwar, Gordon, and Lee, 2007), moral understanding (Piaget, 1932), personality and character formation， (Hartshorne & May, 1928), and children’s compe

9、tence as witnesses in the courts of law (Goodman et al., 2006; Lyon, 2000; Strichartz & Burton, 1990; Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2002, 2004; for a review, see Lee, 2000).</p><p>　　To date, most st

10、udies have focused on the development of antisocial lies and can be divided into two major streams. One stream investigates children’s conceptions and moral judgments of antisocial lies. Extensive research has revealed t

11、hat children from very early on are taught explicitly or implicitly about the negative moral implications associated with antisocial lies. They are also strongly discouraged from telling this type of lie (Cameron, Chen,

12、& Lee, 2001; Wilson, Smith, & Ross, 2003). P</p><p>　　The other stream of research, pioneered by Binet (1896), Darwin (1877), and Hartshorne and May (1928), examines children’s lying behavior for tri

13、ckery, personal protection, or benefit (Chandler et al., 1989; Lewis, Stanger, & Sullivan, 1989; Peskin, 1992; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). It has been found that even preschoolers tell lies wi

14、th intent to deceive (Chandler et al., 1989; Peskin, 1992). Young child lie-tellers are generally skilled in masking their nonverbal behaviors (e.g</p><p>　　In contrast to the extensive literature on antisoc

15、ial lying, there is very limited research on the development of lie-telling for politeness purposes. Research on this issue should offer a unique perspective for understanding social development in children owing to the

16、multifaceted nature of prosocial lie-telling. More specifically, to take an appropriate action in a politeness situation, one must assess, and reason about, both moral and social conventional rules regarding interpersona

17、l interact</p><p>　　Politeness, however, cuts across both domains. In the politeness situation, one must assess, and reason about, the applicability of various moral and social conventional rules to take a m

18、orally and socially appropriate action. More significantly, the politeness situation brings to the fore the inherent contradictions in the rule system in either the moral or social conventional domains, respectively. In

19、the moral domain, the concern for others’ wellbeing and the need to avoid harm should motivat</p><p>　　In the social-conventional domain, there are also contradictory rules concerning interpersonal communica

20、tion, particularly in the case of politeness are clearly demonstrated. On one hand, Grice (1980) suggested that one of the most fundamental conventions governing interpersonal communication is the Maxim of Quality. This

21、maxim requires speakers to inform, not misinform, their communicative partners, which is commonly assumed to be the case when individuals enter into a conversation. Prosocial l</p><p>　　The existing evidence

22、 suggests that many adults have little difficulty in resolving the conflicts evoked by the politeness situation. Typically, they allow that the need to be polite and to avoid hurting others overrides the need to be truth

23、ful. For this reason, adults not only endorse prosocial lies (Lee & Ross, 1997) but tell them regularly (DePaulo & Bell, 1996; DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). In contrast, for children, the politeness situation poses

24、 a challenge to children who are still in the proce</p><p>　　To date, there are only three studies that have examined children’s actual behavior in a politeness situation. Talwar and Lee (2002b) used a Rever

25、se Rouge task in which the experimenter had a conspicuous mark of lipstick on the nose. The child was asked to take a picture of the experimenter, but before the picture was taken, the experimenter asked, ‘‘Do I look oka

26、y for the picture?’’ Results showed that 89% of children between 3 and 7 years of age stated that the experimenter looked okay. Howeve</p><p>　　In another study (Fu & Lee, 2007), Chinese children aged be

27、tween 3 and 6 years were asked to rate pictures that were poorly drawn by confederates. Most children, except for the youngest ones, gave the drawings more positive ratings in front of the confederates than when the conf

28、ederates were absent. Thus, like Western children, Chinese preschoolers appeared also to refrain from telling the blunt truth to others (i.e., the pictures were poorly drawn). However, because the children were not probe

29、d</p><p>　　In the third study, Talwar, Murphy, and Lee (2007) used a disappointing gift paradigm to examine children’s prosocial lie-telling. Children played a game where they were promised a gift from a gif

30、t basket that contained a range of different toys and gifts. After the task, children received an undesirable gift of soap instead of a toy and were questioned by the gift-giver about whether they liked the gift. In this

31、 situation, children had to reconcile their desire for a better gift with the compet</p><p>　　In contrast to the paucity of research on children’s actual prosocial lie-telling behaviors, there is some, albei

32、t limited, research on children’s conceptual understanding of prosocial lies. With regard to children’s concept of prosocial lies, Lee and Ross (1997) found that adolescents aged between 12 and 14 years and college stude

33、nts were less inclined to classify untruthful statements as lies when told with the intent to help another individual than when told to harm. Their results confirmed S</p><p>　　With regard to moral judgments

34、, Bussey (1999) found that children during preschool and elementary school years tended to give negative ratings to prosocial lies. Nevertheless, beginning from 4 years of age, their ratings of prosocial lies were not as

35、 negative as those given to trickery or antisocial lies. Broomfield, Robinson, and Robinson (2002) further found that children aged between 4 and 9 years would suggest that a story character should tell a lie about likin

36、g an unwanted gift to make the</p><p>　　No studies have examined the relationship between children’s conceptions of prosocial lie-telling and their actual lying behavior. Research on the general relationship

37、 between children’s social and moral conceptions and their actual behaviors is of significant importance because the ultimate purpose of socialization is to ensure that children not only know morally what is right or wro

38、ng and conventionally what is appropriate or inappropriate, but that they also act accordingly. Existing studies </p><p>　　Thus, to examine empirically the relation between children’s conceptual knowledge ab

39、out prosocial lie-telling and their actual lying behavior, two methodological measures must be taken. First, one must examine children’s interpretations of hypothetical politeness stories that are used to assess their un

40、derstanding of prosocial lie-telling. Second, one must also obtain children’s interpretations of their own actions in the politeness situation. Such methodological measures were not taken in the p</p><p>　　I

41、n the present study, we assessed 7-, 9-, and 11- year-old Chinese children’s conceptual understanding of prosocial lie-telling and blunt truth-telling in a politeness situation. The three age groups were chosen because e

42、xisting studies have shown that children’s conceptual knowledge about prosocial lie-telling appears to undergo systematic changes during this period (e.g., Broomfield et al., 2002; Bussey, 1999; Walper & Valtin, 1992

43、; Zeng, 2004). Also, this developmental trend appears to be sim</p><p>　　Further, we also placed the children in a real life situation where they themselves must decide whether to tell the truth or lie. In t

44、his situation, children were given an undesirable gift and then asked by the gift-giver whether they liked the gift. This method was a modified version of the undesirable gift paradigm pioneered by Saarni (1984) and Cole

45、 (1986) to examine children’s expressive display rule use, and adapted for examining children’s lie-telling by Talwar, Murphy, et al. (2007). The </p><p><b>　　中文翻譯：</b></p><p>　　兒童的真

46、假話：概念到行為的研究</p><p>　　說(shuō)謊是一種常見的社會(huì)現(xiàn)象。它經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在各種帶有目的性的社會(huì)環(huán)境中，說(shuō)謊的社會(huì)環(huán)境主要有兩種。一種是人們?yōu)榱俗约旱睦娑鴵p害他人的利益而做出了違反社會(huì)規(guī)則的說(shuō)謊行為。這種反社會(huì)的謊言，在孩子很小的時(shí)候，護(hù)理人員以及老師就會(huì)阻止。另一種說(shuō)謊是因?yàn)閭€(gè)人認(rèn)為自己說(shuō)謊的意圖是好的的而且是沒有傷害性的以及親社會(huì)的（如，在給禮物的人的面前假裝喜歡一個(gè)并不喜歡的禮物）。盡管哲學(xué)家和神學(xué)

47、家們對(duì)于善意的謊言是否該被道德制裁有長(zhǎng)期的爭(zhēng)論，這種謊言也時(shí)常出現(xiàn)在每天的說(shuō)話中，而且經(jīng)常有積極的價(jià)值的。一些理論家如斯威特塞提過(guò)，他認(rèn)為在某些情境下，善意的謊言并不僅是被社會(huì)接受的，而且又是會(huì)認(rèn)為并不是說(shuō)謊。</p><p>　　對(duì)說(shuō)謊的發(fā)展有很多廣泛的研究，可以追溯到發(fā)展心理學(xué)的開始。之所以對(duì)說(shuō)謊這個(gè)主題有長(zhǎng)期的興趣，是由于說(shuō)謊可以為孩子心智的發(fā)展提供了一扇窗，如，智力，心智理論，道德認(rèn)識(shí)，個(gè)性和性格的形成，

48、以及孩子們?cè)诜ㄍド献鳛槟繐粽叩哪芰Α?lt;/p><p>　　到目前為止，許多研究都致力于反社會(huì)謊言的發(fā)展，且可以分為兩個(gè)主要的流派。一個(gè)流派演技了孩子們對(duì)于反社會(huì)謊言的概念以及道德判斷。廣泛的研究揭示了孩子在早期就直接的或者間接的學(xué)習(xí)了具有負(fù)面道德意義就是反社會(huì)的謊言。而且，他們強(qiáng)烈的被反對(duì)說(shuō)這類的謊言。如果是出于這個(gè)原因，對(duì)于反社會(huì)謊言的理解在3歲時(shí)就出現(xiàn)了。孩子對(duì)謊言的道德判斷，有證據(jù)顯示，甚至是學(xué)齡前兒童理解

49、反社會(huì)的謊言有負(fù)面的道德意義。</p><p>　　另外一個(gè)流派的研究，是由比奈、達(dá)爾文的、哈茨霍恩以及梅創(chuàng)立的，研究孩子說(shuō)謊行為是主觀說(shuō)謊，個(gè)人保護(hù)還是為了自己的利益。研究顯示，學(xué)齡前的兒童說(shuō)謊都是有意的說(shuō)謊的。說(shuō)謊的小孩會(huì)有技巧的掩蓋他們說(shuō)謊的非語(yǔ)言行為（如，在說(shuō)謊時(shí)眼神交流），但是他們并不擅長(zhǎng)掩藏他們說(shuō)謊的語(yǔ)言陳述（如，他們會(huì)脫口而出他們聲稱并沒有看的一個(gè)玩具的名字）。</p><p&g

50、t;　　與利己性謊言的廣泛的文獻(xiàn)相比，對(duì)于帶有好的目的的謊言發(fā)展只有很少的研究。對(duì)于這方面得研究，我們應(yīng)該從多個(gè)性質(zhì)方面的視角來(lái)理解孩子的謊言的發(fā)展。更確切的說(shuō)，應(yīng)該在一個(gè)親社會(huì)環(huán)境中提過(guò)適當(dāng)?shù)男袆?dòng)，對(duì)關(guān)于人際交往中的道德和社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則評(píng)估并且說(shuō)出原因。Turiel和他的同事已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，道德和社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則在社會(huì)生活和社會(huì)意識(shí)中有著獨(dú)特的領(lǐng)域。傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則關(guān)注的是什么是正確的，什么是錯(cuò)誤的，就如同在社會(huì)福利及正義的規(guī)則中規(guī)范個(gè)人應(yīng)有的行為。相比

51、之下，社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則關(guān)注的是在定義一個(gè)特殊的社會(huì)和社會(huì)服務(wù)體系中社會(huì)期望之下的合理的行為。很典型的是，這些規(guī)則處理在他們各自領(lǐng)域中的個(gè)人社會(huì)思想和行為。如，社會(huì)規(guī)則禁止殺害他人，而社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則讓一個(gè)人在一個(gè)正式的聚會(huì)中穿適當(dāng)?shù)囊路?lt;/p><p>　　親社會(huì)環(huán)境包括了多個(gè)方面。在一個(gè)親社會(huì)環(huán)境中，個(gè)人必須對(duì)不同的道德和社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則做出相應(yīng)的道德和社會(huì)允許的行為做出合適的定義及做出原因解釋。更重要的是，親社會(huì)環(huán)境在

52、道德或社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則方面的內(nèi)在矛盾分別起著重要的作用。在道德領(lǐng)域，為了其他人的健康或者需要避免某種傷害而會(huì)說(shuō)善意的謊言（如，“我喜歡你的禮物”或者“你穿那條裙子很好看”）而并不說(shuō)直率的真話（如，“我不喜歡你的禮物”或“你穿那條裙子真的很胖”）。然而，說(shuō)謊，或者帶有目的性的作了一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的陳述來(lái)欺騙他人，會(huì)長(zhǎng)期被St.Augustine(1952)、Kant(1949)和Bok(1978)等哲學(xué)家或神學(xué)家們看作是道德的罪過(guò)，因?yàn)檎f(shuō)謊會(huì)侵犯說(shuō)謊

53、對(duì)象自由選擇信息的權(quán)利。孩子們也在很小的時(shí)候就在社會(huì)化的進(jìn)程中認(rèn)識(shí)到這種謊言。7在社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)領(lǐng)域，在人際交流尤其是在親社會(huì)環(huán)境中有著明顯差異。一方面，Grice(1980)提出在人際交流中最重要的一個(gè)基本原則是質(zhì)量原則。這個(gè)原則要求說(shuō)話的人進(jìn)入一段對(duì)話時(shí)告訴但并不對(duì)他們說(shuō)話的對(duì)象誤傳。善意的謊言并不遵循這種規(guī)則。另一方面，Lakoff(1973)提出，人際交流必須堅(jiān)持在友好環(huán)境中對(duì)說(shuō)話對(duì)象友善的</p><p>　

54、　現(xiàn)有的證據(jù)顯示，成人在解決由親社會(huì)環(huán)境引起的沖突時(shí)沒有任何的困難。特別是，他們?cè)试S禮貌的需要而避免傷害他人而掩藏了真實(shí)的需要。對(duì)于這個(gè)原因，成人不僅認(rèn)可善意的謊言，而且經(jīng)常會(huì)說(shuō)善意的謊言。而相反的，對(duì)于孩子來(lái)說(shuō)，親社會(huì)環(huán)境為仍要求道德及社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則的孩子們提出了一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)。對(duì)孩子來(lái)說(shuō)，通過(guò)那些規(guī)則解決這些沖突有額外的要求。盡管這些友好的環(huán)境對(duì)生長(zhǎng)中的孩子來(lái)說(shuō)是一種挑戰(zhàn)，它也為發(fā)育研究人員在了解孩子在面對(duì)社會(huì)環(huán)境時(shí)，孩子在不同社會(huì)環(huán)境中如

55、何選擇并適應(yīng)規(guī)則，是否具有制造戰(zhàn)略權(quán)衡的能力方面提供了客觀的機(jī)會(huì)。</p><p>　　至今為止，對(duì)于孩子在親社會(huì)環(huán)境中的實(shí)際行為的研究只有三種。Talwar和Lee(2002b)使用了逆向口紅任務(wù)的試驗(yàn)，實(shí)驗(yàn)者用醒目的口紅色的馬克畫在自己的鼻子上。要求孩子們?yōu)閷?shí)驗(yàn)者畫一幅畫，但是在畫畫之前，實(shí)驗(yàn)者問，“我看上去還好嗎？”在3到7歲得兒童中，89%回答說(shuō)實(shí)驗(yàn)者看上去很好。但是，當(dāng)實(shí)驗(yàn)者離開之后，孩子們會(huì)告訴另外的

56、成人，實(shí)驗(yàn)者看上去并不好。因此，研究人員得出結(jié)論，小孩子在親社會(huì)環(huán)境中會(huì)說(shuō)善意的謊言。但是，因?yàn)椴]有調(diào)查孩子為什么會(huì)說(shuō)這個(gè)謊，所以并不清楚在實(shí)驗(yàn)時(shí)孩子決定是否說(shuō)謊時(shí)的傳統(tǒng)規(guī)則的影響。進(jìn)一步來(lái)說(shuō)，在說(shuō)謊的孩子中，也并不清楚他們說(shuō)謊是否是顧及到了實(shí)驗(yàn)者的感情（善意的謊言）還是為了避免說(shuō)謊可能帶來(lái)的負(fù)面的影響（利己性說(shuō)謊）。</p><p>　　在另外一個(gè)研究中(Fu和Lee2007)，3到6歲得中國(guó)孩子被要求，評(píng)價(jià)

57、同伴畫的很難看的畫。除了最小的孩子，大多數(shù)孩子在同伴面前比同伴離開后給了更多積極的評(píng)價(jià)。因此，像西部的孩子一樣，中國(guó)的學(xué)齡前的孩子已經(jīng)有避免告訴他人直率的真相的行為了（也就是，這些畫都很難看）。但是，因?yàn)闆]有調(diào)查學(xué)生積極評(píng)價(jià)的動(dòng)機(jī)，所以不清楚他們是否是為了同伴（如，考慮到同伴的感受）還是為了自己（如，避免因說(shuō)真話而導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果）的才這樣評(píng)價(jià)的。</p><p>　　在第三個(gè)研究上，Talwar,Murphy和Lee

58、(2007)用了一個(gè)不受歡迎禮物的范例來(lái)測(cè)試孩子的親社會(huì)謊言。讓孩子們玩游戲，并承諾他們會(huì)從有許多不同玩偶和禮物的禮物籃里給他們禮物。在這個(gè)情景下，孩子們必須讓他們要獲得一個(gè)更好的禮物的愿望與社會(huì)傳統(tǒng)的規(guī)則相一致。當(dāng)他們被問道他們是都喜歡禮物時(shí)，大多數(shù)孩子會(huì)告訴給他們禮物的人他們喜歡這些不好的禮物，但是告訴他們父母他們并不喜歡這些禮物。上學(xué)的孩子比學(xué)齡前的孩子更加傾向于說(shuō)謊。但是，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)并沒有系統(tǒng)的調(diào)查孩子說(shuō)謊的理由。因此，這也不能清

59、楚的說(shuō)明是否孩子是出于自我保護(hù)（如，避免告訴給禮物的人真話而得到一個(gè)負(fù)面的結(jié)果）還是為了保護(hù)給禮物的人的感受而說(shuō)謊。</p><p>　　與對(duì)孩子實(shí)際的親社會(huì)性的說(shuō)謊行為的少量研究相比，雖然很少但仍然有對(duì)孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言概念的理解的研究。孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的概念，Lee和Ross(1997)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在12到14歲的青少年與大學(xué)生中，當(dāng)告訴他們?yōu)榱藥椭硕皇乔趾λ藭r(shí)，較少的傾向于將不真實(shí)的陳述也看作是謊言。他

60、們的研究結(jié)果證實(shí)了Sweetser(1987)關(guān)于為了幫助他人而故意地做出不真實(shí)陳述的理論性的爭(zhēng)論。相對(duì)而言，Bussey(1999)報(bào)告了，4到11歲的大多數(shù)孩子將所有的不真實(shí)的陳述都視為謊言，而忽視了他們的反社會(huì)或親社會(huì)因素。這個(gè)結(jié)論揭露了在青少年成長(zhǎng)過(guò)程中，對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的概念的理解有很大的塑造的可能性。</p><p>　　考慮道德判斷原則，Bussey (1999)發(fā)現(xiàn)，學(xué)齡前兒童和小學(xué)生傾向于對(duì)親社會(huì)謊

61、言作負(fù)面的評(píng)價(jià)。然而，從4歲開始，他們不將親社會(huì)謊言看作是欺騙或者是反社會(huì)的謊言。Broomfield, Robinson和Robinson(2002)更深入的發(fā)現(xiàn)，在4到9歲的孩子認(rèn)為，故事中的角色應(yīng)該說(shuō)喜歡并不想要的禮物的謊，來(lái)使給禮物者認(rèn)為他是喜歡這個(gè)禮物的。并且，孩子們認(rèn)為給禮物的人很樂意聽到這樣的謊話。Broomfield等(2002)的結(jié)論在中國(guó)(Zeng, 2004)得到了驗(yàn)證。但是，Walper和Valtin(1992)

62、發(fā)現(xiàn)，只有高年級(jí)小學(xué)生才開始對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言作正面的評(píng)價(jià)。這些結(jié)論都揭露了孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言概念的理解從學(xué)齡前就開始了，并且在兒童時(shí)期在不斷的發(fā)展。他們揭示了對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的評(píng)價(jià)的對(duì)立是由親社會(huì)環(huán)境因素引起的，但是只有在兒童后期，孩子才會(huì)出現(xiàn)允許禮貌的需要而避免傷害他人而不顧真實(shí)的需要的行為。但應(yīng)該注意到，這個(gè)結(jié)論也是暫定的，因?yàn)檫@些研究并沒有證明孩子評(píng)價(jià)的潛在的基本原則。</p><p>　　現(xiàn)在還沒有關(guān)于孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)

63、謊言的概念以及他們實(shí)際的說(shuō)謊行為之間有何聯(lián)系的研究。對(duì)孩子社會(huì)道德概念以及他們實(shí)際行為之間的一般關(guān)系的研究是非常重要的，因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)化的最終目的是不僅是讓孩子知道在道德上什么是對(duì)的什么是錯(cuò)的，而且要知道一般意義上什么是合理的什么是不合理的，但是他們?nèi)詴?huì)做相應(yīng)的行為?，F(xiàn)有的研究顯示，孩子以及成人關(guān)于在道德困境以及反社會(huì)謊言的道德知識(shí)和道德行為，基本上是沒有聯(lián)系的 (Arnold,1989; Blasi,1980; Talwar 等2002,

64、2004; Thoma和Rest,1986) 。根據(jù)他們的道德和社會(huì)規(guī)則的概念性知識(shí)，為什么會(huì)無(wú)法做出說(shuō)謊行為，眾多理論給了許多解釋(Arsenio和Lemerise, 2004; Crick和 Dodge, 1994; Huesmann, 1998; Rest, 1986; Walker, 2002)，包括涉及侵略(Crick和 Dodge, 1994; Huesmann, 1998)或親社會(huì)行為(Rest, 1986)的情境。斷開的

65、一個(gè)主要的原因是，在假設(shè)情境下對(duì)道德和社會(huì)規(guī)則的解釋和在實(shí)際情況下的道德和社會(huì)應(yīng)有的恰當(dāng)行為的</p><p>　　因此，為了實(shí)際的調(diào)查孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的概念理解以及他們實(shí)際的說(shuō)謊行為的關(guān)系，采用了兩種方法來(lái)調(diào)查。首先，必須先調(diào)查孩子對(duì)假設(shè)親社會(huì)情境下故事的解釋，來(lái)測(cè)試他們對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的理解。其次，還必須要獲得孩子他們?cè)儆H社會(huì)情境下自己實(shí)際的行為。這種測(cè)量的方法在先前研究中并沒有采用過(guò)，所以與我們以往的知識(shí)有一定

66、的差距：（a）在哪個(gè)年齡階段，孩子開始理解在什么情境下應(yīng)該說(shuō)真話，什么情境下應(yīng)該說(shuō)禮貌的話并避免傷害他人，（b）在那個(gè)年齡階段，孩子開始為了親社會(huì)的理由開始說(shuō)謊，（c）孩子對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的理解與他們實(shí)際行為是否有聯(lián)系。這個(gè)研究就是為了彌合這些文字上的差距并且解釋這三個(gè)重要的問題。</p><p>　　在當(dāng)前的研究中，我們對(duì)7、9以及11歲的中國(guó)兒童對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言概念的理解以及在親社會(huì)環(huán)境中說(shuō)直率的真話的行為進(jìn)行了評(píng)估

67、。之所以選擇這三個(gè)年齡階段的學(xué)生，是因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)有研究顯示在這個(gè)年齡階段的兒童對(duì)親社會(huì)謊言的概念的理解正在經(jīng)歷系統(tǒng)的改變(Broomfield 等, 2002; Bussey, 1999; Walper 和 Valtin, 1992; Zeng, 2004)。并且，這種不斷發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)是西方兒童和中國(guó)兒童出現(xiàn)類似的情況(Broomfield等, 2002; Zeng, 2004)。中國(guó)兒童看故事主角遇到了一個(gè)親社會(huì)環(huán)境（如，獲得了一個(gè)不需要的禮

68、物）。故事主角分別做了真實(shí)的和不真實(shí)的陳述。要求兒童區(qū)分哪些是謊言，哪些是真話，并且評(píng)估主角的陳述是積極的還是消極的。并要求兒童對(duì)故事中主角收到了一個(gè)不需要的禮物是應(yīng)該說(shuō)謊還是說(shuō)真話做出回應(yīng)。這些控制故事就是為了確定兒童收到一個(gè)不需要的禮物時(shí)，并不是簡(jiǎn)單的做出符合或不符合事實(shí)的陳述，而是對(duì)說(shuō)真話還是說(shuō)謊話的道德判斷和歸類。</p><p>　　進(jìn)一步地，我們也將兒童置于一個(gè)他們必須自己決定說(shuō)真話還是說(shuō)假話的真實(shí)的

69、社會(huì)環(huán)境中。在這個(gè)情境下，給了兒童一個(gè)不需要的禮物，然后由給禮物的人問他們是否喜歡這個(gè)禮物。這個(gè)方法是將Saarni (1984)和Cole (1986)開辟的不需要禮物的范例來(lái)測(cè)試兒童對(duì)規(guī)則的使用而改編的，由Talwar, Murphy (2007)等操作，來(lái)測(cè)試兒童說(shuō)謊情況的。之所以選擇給予不需要禮物的情境，是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)情境在兒童時(shí)期經(jīng)常會(huì)出現(xiàn)（生日時(shí)從祖父母那里收到一件質(zhì)量不好的針織衫），而且兒童很早就知道掩飾他們不喜歡的真實(shí)的感受