心理学毕业论文外文翻译-儿童的真假话-概念到行为的研究

外文文献翻译部分原文：LyingandTruth-TellinginChildren:FromConcepttoActionFenXu,BeijingXuehuaGenyueFu,ZhejiangNormalVictoriaTalwar,McGillKangLee,UniversityofToronto,Canada&UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiegoLyingisacommonsocialphenomenon.Itoccursregularlyinvarious.Forchildren,therearetwotypesofliesthatareofgreatimportanceduringtheirsocialization.Onetypeistheliesthatviolatemoralrulesastheyaretypicallytoldtobenefitoneselfattheexpenseofothers.Asaresultoftheantisocialnatureofthistypeoflie,itisuniversallydiscouragedbychildren’scaregiversandteachersfromaveryearlyage.Theothertypeofliesarethosethataretoldwithanintentiontohelp,notharm,anotherindividual(e.g.,fakinglikinganundesirablegiftinfrontofagift-giver)andarethusprosocialinnature.Althoughphilosophersandtheologianshavelongdebatedaboutwhetherprosocialliesshouldbemorallysanctioned(Bok,1978),ineverydaypractice,suchliesaretoldfrequently(DePaulo&Bell,1996;DePaulo&Kashy,2021),andoftenentailpositivevalues(Nyberg,1993).SometheoristssuchasSweetser(1987)haveevensuggestedthatinsomesituationsprosocialliesarenotonlysociallyacceptablebutalsoarenotliesatall.Therehasbeenextensiveresearchonthedevelopmentoflyingwhichdatesbacktothebeginningofdevelopmentalpsychology(e.g.,Binet,1896;Darwin,1877;Piaget,1932).Thislong-standinginterestinthistopicisaresultofthefactthatlyingcanserveasawindowintomanyaspectsofchildren’sdevelopingminds,forexample,intelligence(Binet,1896;Lewis,1993),theoryofmind(Chandler,Fritz,&Hala,1989;Leekam,1993;Peskin,1992;Peterson,1995;Peterson,&Seeto,1983;Polak&Harris,2021;Sodian,1991;Talwar,Gordon,andLee,2021),moralunderstanding(Piaget,1932),personalityandcharacterformation，(Hartshorne&May,1928),andchildren’scompetenceaswitnessesinthecourtsoflaw(Goodmanetal.,2021;Lyon,2021;Strichartz&Burton,1990;Talwar,Lee,Bala,&Lindsay,2021,2021;forareview,seeLee,2021).Todate,moststudieshavefocusedonthedevelopmentofantisocialliesandcanbedividedintotwomajorstreams.Onestreaminvestigateschildren’sconceptionsandmoraljudgmentsofantisociallies.Extensiveresearchhasrevealedthatchildrenfromveryearlyonaretaughtexplicitlyorimplicitlyaboutthenegativemoralimplicationsassociatedwithantisociallies.Theyarealsostronglydiscouragedfromtellingthistypeoflie(Cameron,Chen,&Lee,2021;Wilson,Smith,&Ross,2021).Perhapsforthisreason,theconceptualunderstandingofantisocialtypeofliesemergesasearlyas3yearsofage(Siegal&Peterson,2021;Talwaretal.,2021).Withregardtochildren’smoraljudgmentsoflying,evidenceshowsthatevenpreschoolersunderstandthatantisocialliesentailnegativemoralimplications(Bussey,1992,2021;Talwaretal.,2021).Theotherstreamofresearch,pioneeredbyBinet(1896),Darwin(1877),andHartshorneandMay(1928),examineschildren’slyingbehaviorfortrickery,personalprotection,orbenefit(Chandleretal.,1989;Lewis,Stanger,&Sullivan,1989;Peskin,1992;Polak&Harris,2021;Talwar&Lee,2021a).Ithasbeenfoundthatevenpreschoolerstelllieswithintenttodeceive(Chandleretal.,1989;Peskin,1992).Youngchildlie-tellersaregenerallyskilledinmaskingtheirnonverbalbehaviors(e.g.,makingeyecontactwhilelying:Lewisetal.,1989;Talwar&Lee,2021a),butpooratconcealingtheirdeceptionintheirverbalstatements(e.g.,blurtingoutthenameofatoythattheyclaimednottohavepeekedat:Polak&Harris,2021;Talwar&Lee,2021a,2021;Talwar,Gordon,etal.,2021).Incontrasttotheextensiveliteratureonantisociallying,thereisverylimitedresearchonthedevelopmentoflie-tellingforpolitenesspurposes.Researchonthisissueshouldofferauniqueperspectiveforunderstandingsocialdevelopmentinchildrenowingtothemultifacetednatureofprosociallie-telling.Morespecifically,totakeanappropriateactioninapolitenesssituation,onemustassess,andreasonabout,bothmoralandsocialconventionalrulesregardinginterpersonalinteraction.Turielandhiscolleagues(Helwig&Turiel,2021;Nucci&Turiel,2021;Smetana&Turiel,2021;Turiel,2021)havefoundthatmoralandsocialconventionalrulesaredistinctivedomainsintherealmofsociallifeandsocialthought.Moralrulesareconcernedwithwhatisrightandwhatiswrongaswellasregulatinghowindividualsoughttobehavetowardeachotherbasedontheprinciplesofwelfareandjustice.Incontrast,socialconventionalrulesareconcernedwithuniformitiesthatdefinesocialexpectationsregardingappropriatebehaviorswithinaspecificsocietyandservefunctionsofsocialcoordination.Typically,theserulesdealwithindividuals’socialthoughtsandactionsintheirrespectivedomains.Forexample,moralrulesprohibitkillingofanotherhumanbeing,whereassocialconventionalrulesmayrequireonetodressproperlyataformalsocialgathering.Politeness,however,cutsacrossbothdomains.Inthepolitenesssituation,onemustassess,andreasonabout,theapplicabilityofvariousmoralandsocialconventionalrulestotakeamorallyandsociallyappropriateaction.Moresignificantly,thepolitenesssituationbringstotheforetheinherentcontradictionsintherulesystemineitherthemoralorsocialconventionaldomains,respectively.Inthemoraldomain,theconcernforothers’wellbeingandtheneedtoavoidharmshouldmotivateonetotellaprosociallie(e.g.,‘‘Ireallylikeyourgift’’or‘‘Youlookgreatinthatdress’’)ratherthantellingtheblunttruth(e.g.,‘‘Idonotlikeyourgift’’or‘‘Youlookfatinthatdress’’).However,lying,ormakingafalsestatementwithanintenttodeceive,haslongbeenconsideredtobeaseriousmoraltransgressionbyphilosophersandtheologians,suchasSt.Augustine(1952),Kant(1949),andBok(1978)becauselyingimpingesonthelie-recipient’srighttoinformationandfreedomofchoice(Grice,1980;Krupfer,1982).Childrenhavealsobeensocializedtotakethisviewoflyingfromveryearlyoninlife(Cameronetal.,2021;Wilsonetal.,2021).Inthesocial-conventionaldomain,therearealsocontradictoryrulesconcerninginterpersonalcommunication,particularlyinthecaseofpolitenessareclearlydemonstrated.Ononehand,Grice(1980)suggestedthatoneofthemostfundamentalconventionsgoverninginterpersonalcommunicationistheMaximofQuality.Thismaximrequiresspeakerstoinform,notmisinform,theircommunicativepartners,whichiscommonlyassumedtobethecasewhenindividualsenterintoaconversation.Prosocialliesclearlyfloutthismaxim.Ontheotherhand,Lakoff(1973)proposedthatinterpersonalcommunicationsmustalsoadheretotheRuleofPolitenessthatrequiresspeakerstobeamicabletotheircommunicativepartners.Inthepolitenesssituation,thisrulecallsforindividualstonottelltheblunttruthtoestablishormaintainanamicablerelationshipwithanother.Theexistingevidencesuggeststhatmanyadultshavelittledifficultyinresolvingtheconflictsevokedbythepolitenesssituation.Typically,theyallowthattheneedtobepoliteandtoavoidhurtingothersoverridestheneedtobetruthful.Forthisreason,adultsnotonlyendorseprosociallies(Lee&Ross,2021)buttellthemregularly(DePaulo&Bell,1996;DePaulo&Kashy,2021).Incontrast,forchildren,thepolitenesssituationposesachallengetochildrenwhoarestillintheprocessofacquiringmoralandsocial-conventionalrulesoftheirsociety.Resolvingconflictsbetweentheserulesplacesadditionaldemandsonthem.Althoughthepolitenesssituationmaybeachallengefordevelopingchildren,itoffersanaturalisticopportunityfordevelopmentalresearcherstounderstandwhetherchildrenarecapableofmakingstrategictrade-offswhenfacingsocialsituationswhererulesareinconflictaswellashowtheyselectandapplyrulesadaptivelyindifferentsocialsituations.Todate,thereareonlythreestudiesthathaveexaminedchildren’sactualbehaviorinapolitenesssituation.TalwarandLee(2021b)usedaReverseRougetaskinwhichtheexperimenterhadaconspicuousmarkoflipstickonthenose.Thechildwasaskedtotakeapictureoftheexperimenter,butbeforethepicturewastaken,theexperimenterasked,‘‘DoIlookokayforthepicture?’’Resultsshowedthat89%ofchildrenbetween3and7yearsofagestatedthattheexperimenterlookedokay.However,whentheexperimenterleft,childrentoldanotheradultthattheexperimenteractuallydidnotlookokay.Thus,theresearchersconcludedthatyoungchildrencantellprosocialliesinapolitenesssituation.However,becausechildrenwerenotprobedaboutwhytheytoldsuchalie,itisunclearwhetherthechildreninthestudyconsideredthecontradictoryrulesevokedbythesituationwhendecidingtolie.Further,amongthechildrenwholied,itwasunclearastowhethertheytoldliestosparethefeelingsoftheexperimenter(aprosociallie)ortoavoidpotentialnegativeconsequencesifthetruthwastold(aself-protectivelie).Inanotherstudy(Fu&Lee,2021),Chinesechildrenagedbetween3and6yearswereaskedtoratepicturesthatwerepoorlydrawnbyconfederates.Mostchildren,exceptfortheyoungestones,gavethedrawingsmorepositiveratingsinfrontoftheconfederatesthanwhentheconfederateswereabsent.Thus,likeWesternchildren,Chinesepreschoolersappearedalsotorefrainfromtellingtheblunttruthtoothers(i.e.,thepictureswerepoorlydrawn).However,becausethechildrenwerenotprobedabouttheirmotivationforinflatingtheirratings,itisnotclearwhethertheydidsoforthebenefitoftheconfederate(e.g.,sparingthefeelingsoftheconfederate)orforthemselves(e.g.,avoidingnegativeconsequencesifthetruthwastold).Inthethirdstudy,Talwar,Murphy,andLee(2021)usedadisappointinggiftparadigmtoexaminechildren’sprosociallie-telling.Childrenplayedagamewheretheywerepromisedagiftfromagiftbasketthatcontainedarangeofdifferenttoysandgifts.Afterthetask,childrenreceivedanundesirablegiftofsoapinsteadofatoyandwerequestionedbythegift-giveraboutwhethertheylikedthegift.Inthissituation,childrenhadtoreconciletheirdesireforabettergiftwiththecompetingsocialandmoralrequirementtobepolite.Whenaskediftheylikedthegift,themajorityofchildrentoldthegift-giveruntruthfullythattheylikedthedisappointinggift,despitehavingtoldtheirparentsthattheydidnotlikethegift.School-agedchildrenweremorelikelytoliethanwerepreschoolchildren.However,thisstudyalsodidnotsystematicallyprobechildren’sjustificationsfortheirlies.Thus,itisagainnotclearwhethersomechildrenweremoremotivatedtolieforself-protection(e.g.,avoidingnegativeresponsesfromthegift-giverifthetruthwastold)ortobepoliteandprotectthegift-giver’sfeelings.Incontrasttothepaucityofresearchonchildren’sactualprosociallie-tellingbehaviors,thereissome,albeitlimited,researchonchildren’sconceptualunderstandingofprosociallies.Withregardtochildren’sconceptofprosociallies,LeeandRoss(2021)foundthatadolescentsagedbetween12and14yearsandcollegestudentswerelessinclinedtoclassifyuntruthfulstatementsaslieswhentoldwiththeintenttohelpanotherindividualthanwhentoldtoharm.TheirresultsconfirmedSweetser’s(1987)theoreticalcontentionthatuntruthfulstatementsdeliberatelytoldtohelpanotherindividualandtobepolitemaynotbeconsideredlies.Incontrast,Bussey(2021)reportedthatmostchildrenagedbetween4and11yearsclassifyalltypesofuntruthfulstatementsasliesregardlessoftheiranti-orprosocialnature.Thisfindingsuggestsapossibledevelopmentalchangeintermsoftheconceptofprosocialliesduringadolescence.Withregardtomoraljudgments,Bussey(2021)foundthatchildrenduringpreschoolandelementaryschoolyearstendedtogivenegativeratingstoprosociallies.Nevertheless,beginningfrom4yearsofage,theirratingsofprosociallieswerenotasnegativeasthosegiventotrickeryorantisociallies.Broomfield,Robinson,andRobinson(2021)furtherfoundthatchildrenagedbetween4and9yearswouldsuggestthatastorycharactershouldtellalieaboutlikinganunwantedgifttomakethegiverbelievethegiftwasliked.Thechildrenalsojudgedthatthegift-giverwouldbehappywhenhearingthelie.TheresultsofBroomfieldetal.(2021)werereplicatedinChina(Zeng,2021).However,WalperandValtin(1992)foundthatchildrenonlybegantogiveprosocialliespositiveevaluationsattheendoftheelementaryschoolyears.Thesefindingstakentogethersuggestthatchildren’sconceptualunderstandingofprosocialliesbeginsinpreschoolyearsanddevelopsthroughoutthechildhood.Theyappeartobeabletoconsiderthecontradictoryrulesevokedbythepolitenesssituationwhenevaluatingprosociallies,butonlyinlatechildhooddochildrenappeartoallowtheneedtobepoliteandavoidhurtinganother’sfeelingsoverridetheneedtobetruthful.Itshouldbenotedthatthisconclusionistentativebecausethesestudiesdidnotprobechildrenabouttheunderlyingrationalesfortheirevaluations.Nostudieshaveexaminedtherelationshipbetweenchildren’sconceptionsofprosociallie-tellingandtheiractuallyingbehavior.Researchonthegeneralrelationshipbetweenchildren’ssocialandmoralconceptionsandtheiractualbehaviorsisofsignificantimportancebecausetheultimatepurposeofsocializationistoensurethatchildrennotonlyknowmorallywhatisrightorwrongandconventionallywhatisappropriateorinappropriate,butthattheyalsoactaccordingly.ExistingstudieswithchildrenandadultsconcerningKolhbergianmoraldilemmasaswellasantisociallyinghaveshowneitherweakornolinkagesbetweenindividuals’moralknowledgeandmoralaction(Arnold,1989;Blasi,1980;Talwaretal.,2021,2021;Thoma&Rest,1986).Multipletheorieshaveprovidedavarietyofexplanationsastowhyindividualsfailtoactaccordingtotheirconceptualknowledgeaboutmoralorsocialrules(Arsenio&Lemerise,2021;Crick&Dodge,1994;Huesmann,2021;Rest,1986;Walker,2021),includingsituationsinvolvingaggression(Crick&Dodge,1994;Huesmann,2021)orprosocialbehaviors(e.g.,Rest,1986).Amajorfactorcontributingtothisdisconnectionisthedifferenceintheinterpretationofhypotheticalsituationsusedtoassessmoralandsocialknowledgeandinterpretationsofactualsituationsthatcallformorallyandsociallyappropriatebehavior.Thisisparticularlytrueforsituationswherecontradictorymoralandsocialrulesmayapply.Forexample,inapolitenesssituation,individualsmayinterprettheneedtobepoliteandtoavoidhurtinganothertobetheprimaryconcernandthusadvocatehypotheticallythatoneshouldtellaprosociallieinsuchasituation.However,whenencounteringthesamesituationinreality,theymayinterpretthesituationtorequireonlyforthefulfillmentoftheneedtobetruthfulandthustellthetruth.Alternatively,individualscouldinterpretthehypotheticalsituationtobeconcernedwiththeneedtothetruthfulbutthereallifesituationtobeconcernedwiththeneedtobepoliteandtoavoidhurtinganother.Inbothcases,adisconnectionbetweenconceptualknowledgeandactionresults.Thus,toexamineempiricallytherelationbetweenchildren’sconceptualknowledgeaboutprosociallie-tellingandtheiractuallyingbehavior,twomethodologicalmeasuresmustbetaken.First,onemustexaminechildren’sinterpretationsofhypotheticalpolitenessstoriesthatareusedtoassesstheirunderstandingofprosociallie-telling.Second,onemustalsoobtainchildren’sinterpretationsoftheirownactionsinthepolitenesssituation.Suchmethodologicalmeasureswerenottakeninthepreviousstudies,whichleavesgapsinourknowledgeabout:(a)theageatwhichchildrenbegintounderstandthepolitenesssituationtobeasituationwhereoneneedstoconsidertheneedtobetruthfulandtheneedtobepoliteandavoidhurtinganother,(b)theageatwhichtheybegintotellliesforprosocialreasons,andmostimportantly,(c)whetherchildren’sconceptualunderstandingofprosociallie-tellingisrelatedtotheiractualbehaviorsinthepolitenesssituation.Thisstudywasconductedtobridgethegapintheliteratureandtoaddressthesethreeimportantquestions.Inthepresentstudy,weassessed7-,9-,and11-year-oldChinesechildren’sconceptualunderstandingofprosociallie-tellingandblunttruth-tellinginapolitenesssituation.Thethreeagegroupswerechosenbecauseexistingstudieshaveshownthatchildren’sconceptualknowledgeaboutprosociallie-tellingappearstoundergosystematicchangesduringthisperiod(e.g.,Broomfieldetal.,2021;Bussey,2021;Walper&Valtin,1992;Zeng,2021).Also,thisdevelopmentaltrendappearstobesimilarbetweenWesternandChinesechildren(seeBroomfieldetal.,2021;Zeng,2021).TheChinesechildrenwerereadstoriesinwhichstorycharactersencounterpolitenesssituations(e.g.,receivinganundesirablegift).Thestorycharacterseithermadetruthfuloruntruthfulstatements.Childrenwereaskedtoclassifythestatementsasliesortruths.Also,theywereaskedtoevaluatethestatementseitherpositivelyornegativelyandtojustifytheirratings.Childrenwerealsoaskedtorespondtocontrolstoriesinwhichastorycharacterreceivesadesirablegiftandlikesitandtellsthetruthorlieaboutit.Theuseofthesecontrolstorieswastoensurethatchildren’scategorizationsandmoraljudgmentsoflie-ortruth-tellingaboutundesirablegiftswouldnotbesimplyresponsestotruthfulanduntruthfulstatementsingeneral.Further,wealsoplacedthechildreninareallifesituationwheretheythemselvesmustdecidewhethertotellthetruthorlie.Inthissituation,childrenweregivenanundesirablegiftandthenaskedbythegift-giverwhethertheylikedthegift.ThismethodwasamodifiedversionoftheundesirablegiftparadigmpioneeredbySaarni(1984)andCole(1986)toexaminechildren’sexpressivedisplayruleuse,andadaptedforexaminingchildren’slie-tellingbyTalwar,Murphy,etal.(2021).Theundesirablegiftsituationwaschosenbecausethisisasituationthatoccurscommonlyinchildren’slives(e.g.,receivingapoorlyfittingknittedsweaterfromgrandparentsasabirthdaygift),andchildrenaresocializedfromearlyontodissembletheirtruefeelingofdislikinginsuchsituations.Indeed,from4yearsofage,childrenarealreadyabletodissembletheirnonverbal(Cole,1986;Saarni,1984)orverbalbehaviors(Talwar,Murphy,etal.,2021)toappearpleasedaboutreceivinganundesirablegift.中文翻译：儿童的真假话：概念到行为的研究说谎是一种常见的社会现象。它经常出现在各种带有目的性的社会环境中，说谎的社会环境主要有两种。一种是人们为了自己的利益而损害他人的利益而做出了违反社会规则的说谎行为。这种反社会的谎言，在孩子很小的时候，护理人员以及老师就会阻止。另一种说谎是因为个人认为自己说谎的意图是好的的而且是没有伤害性的以及亲社会的（如，在给礼物的人的面前假装喜欢一个并不喜欢的礼物）。尽管哲学家和神学家们对于善意的谎言是否该被道德制裁有长期的争论，这种谎言也时常出现在每天的说话中，而且经常有积极的价值的。一些理论家如斯威特塞提过，他认为在某些情境下，善意的谎言并不仅是被社会接受的，而且又是会认为并不是说谎。对说谎的发展有很多广泛的研究，可以追溯到发展心理学的开始。之所以对说谎这个主题有长期的兴趣，是由于说谎可以为孩子心智的发展提供了一扇窗，如，智力，心智理论，道德认识，个性和性格的形成，以及孩子们在法庭上作为目击者的能力。到目前为止，许多研究都致力于反社会谎言的发展，且可以分为两个主要的流派。一个流派演技了孩子们对于反社会谎言的概念以及道德判断。广泛的研究揭示了孩子在早期就直接的或者间接的学习了具有负面道德意义就是反社会的谎言。而且，他们强烈的被反对说这类的谎言。如果是出于这个原因，对于反社会谎言的理解在3岁时就出现了。孩子对谎言的道德判断，有证据显示，甚至是学龄前儿童理解反社会的谎言有负面的道德意义。另外一个流派的研究，是由比奈、达尔文的、哈茨霍恩以及梅创立的，研究孩子说谎行为是主观说谎，个人保护还是为了自己的利益。研究显示，学龄前的儿童说谎都是有意的说谎的。说谎的小孩会有技巧的掩盖他们说谎的非语言行为（如，在说谎时眼神交流），但是他们并不擅长掩藏他们说谎的语言陈述（如，他们会脱口而出他们声称并没有看的一个玩具的名字）。与利己性谎言的广泛的文献相比，对于带有好的目的的谎言发展只有很少的研究。对于这方面得研究，我们应该从多个性质方面的视角来理解孩子的谎言的发展。更确切的说，应该在一个亲社会环境中提过适当的行动，对关于人际交往中的道德和社会传统规则评估并且说出原因。Turiel和他的同事已经发现，道德和社会传统规则在社会生活和社会意识中有着独特的领域。传统规则关注的是什么是正确的，什么是错误的，就如同在社会福利及正义的规则中规范个人应有的行为。相比之下，社会传统规则关注的是在定义一个特殊的社会和社会服务体系中社会期望之下的合理的行为。很典型的是，这些规则处理在他们各自领域中的个人社会思想和行为。如，社会规则禁止杀害他人，而社会传统规则让一个人在一个正式的聚会中穿适当的衣服。亲社会环境包括了多个方面。在一个亲社会环境中，个人必须对不同的道德和社会传统规则做出相应的道德和社会允许的行为做出合适的定义及做出原因解释。更重要的是，亲社会环境在道德或社会传统规则方面的内在矛盾分别起着重要的作用。在道德领域，为了其他人的健康或者需要避免某种伤害而会说善意的谎言（如，“我喜欢你的礼物”或者“你穿那条裙子很好看”）而并不说直率的真话（如，“我不喜欢你的礼物”或“你穿那条裙子真的很胖”）。然而，说谎，或者带有目的性的作了一个错误的陈述来欺骗他人，会长期被St.Augustine(1952)、Kant(1949)和Bok(1978)等哲学家或神学家们看作是道德的罪过，因为说谎会侵犯说谎对象自由选择信息的权利。孩子们也在很小的时候就在社会化的进程中认识到这种谎言。7在社会传统领域，在人际交流尤其是在亲社会环境中有着明显差异。一方面，Grice(1980)提出在人际交流中最重要的一个基本原则是质量原则。这个原则要求说话的人进入一段对话时告诉但并不对他们说话的对象误传。善意的谎言并不遵循这种规则。另一方面，Lakoff(1973)提出，人际交流必须坚持在友好环境中对说话对象友善的准则。在亲社会环境中，这个规则让个人在与他人建立或维护友好关系时不说直率的真话。现有的证据显示，成人在解决由亲社会环境引起的冲突时没有任何的困难。特别是，他们允许礼貌的需要而避免伤害他人而掩藏了真实的需要。对于这个原因，成人不仅认可善意的谎言，而且经常会说善意的谎言。而相反的，对于孩子来说，亲社会环境为仍要求道德及社会传统规则的孩子们提出了一个挑战。对孩子来说，通过那些规则解决这些冲突有额外的要求。尽管这些友好的环境对生长中的孩子来说是一种挑战，它也为发育研究人员在了解孩子在面对社会环境时，孩子在不同社会环境中如何选择并适应规则，是否具有制造战略权衡的能力方面提供了客观的机会。至今为止，对于孩子在亲社会环境中的实际行为的研究只有三种。Talwar和Lee(2021b)使用了逆向口红任务的试验，实验者用醒目的口红色的马克画在自己的鼻子上。要求孩子们为实验者画一幅画，但是在画画之前，实验者问，“我看上去还好吗？”在3到7岁得儿童中，89%回答说实验者看上去很好。但是，当实验者离开之后，孩子们会告诉另外的成人，实验者看上去并不好。因此，研究人员得出结论，小孩子在亲社会环境中会说善意的谎言。但是，因为并没有调查孩子为什么会说这个谎，所以并不清楚在实验时孩子决定是否说谎时的传统规则的影响。进一步来说，在说谎的孩子中，也并不清楚他们说谎是否是顾及到了实验者的感情（善意的谎言）还是为了避免说谎可能带来的负面的影响（利己性说谎）。在另外一个研究中(Fu和Lee2021)，3到6岁得中国孩子被要求，评价同伴画的很难看的画。除了最小的孩子，大多数孩子在同伴面前比同伴离开后给了更多积极的评价。因此，像西部的孩子一样，中国的学龄前的孩子已经有避免告诉他人直率的真相的行为了（也就是，这些画都很难看）。但是，因为没有调查学生积极评价的动机，所以不清楚他们是否是为了同伴（如，考虑到同伴的感受）还是为了自己（如，避免因说真话而导致的结果）的才这样评价的。在第三个研究上，Talwar,Murphy和Lee(2021)用了一个不受欢迎礼物的范例来测试孩子的亲社会谎言。让孩子们玩游戏，并承诺他们会从有许多不同玩偶和礼物的礼物篮里给他们礼物。在这个情景下，孩子们必须让他们要获得一个更好的礼物的愿望与社会传统的规则相一致。当他们被问道他们是都喜欢礼物时，大多数孩子会告诉给他们礼物的人他们喜欢这些不好的礼物，但是告诉他们父母他们并不喜欢这些礼物。上学的孩子比学龄前的孩子更加倾向于说谎。但是，这个实验并没有系统的调查孩子说谎的理由。因此，这也不能清楚的说明是否孩子是出于自我保护（如，避免告诉给礼物的人真话而得到一个负面的结果）还是为了保护给礼物的人的感受而说谎。与对孩子实际的亲社会性的说谎行为的少量研究相比，虽然很少但仍然有对孩子对亲社会谎言概念的理解的研究。孩子对亲社会谎言的概念，Lee和Ross(2021)研究发现，在12到14岁的青少年与大学生中，当告诉他们为了帮助他人而不是侵害他人时，较少的倾向于将不真实的陈述也看作是谎言。他们的研究结果证实了Sweetser(1987)关于为了帮助他人而故意地做出不真实陈述的理论性的争论。相对而言，Bussey(2021)报告了，4到11岁的大多数孩子将所有的不真实的陈述都视为谎言，而忽视了他们的反社会或亲社会因素。这个结论揭露了在青少年成长过程中，对亲社会谎言的概念的理解有很大的塑造的可能性。考虑道德判断原则，Bussey(2021)发现，学龄前儿童和小学生倾向于对亲社会谎言作负面的评价。然而，从4岁开始，他们不将亲社会谎言看作是欺骗或者是反社会的谎言。Broomfield,Robinson和Robinson(2021)更深入的发现，在4到9岁的孩子认为，故事中的角色应该说喜欢并不想要的礼物的谎，来使给礼物者认为他是喜欢这个礼物的。并且，孩子们认为给礼物的人很乐意听到这样的谎话。Broomfield等(2021)的结论在中国(Zeng,2021)得到了验证。但是，Walper和Valtin(1992)发现，只有高年级小学生才开始对亲社会谎言作正面的评价。这些结论都揭露了孩子对亲社会谎言概念的理解从学龄前就开始了，并且在儿童时期在不断的发展。他们揭示了对亲社会谎言的评价的对立是由亲社会环境因素引起的，但是只有在儿童后期，孩子才会出现允许礼貌的需要而避免伤害他人而不顾真实的需要的行为。但应该注意到，这个结论也是暂定的，因为这些研究并没有证明孩子评价的潜在的基本原则。现在还没有关于孩子对亲社会谎言的概念以及他们实际的说谎行为之间有何联系的研究。对孩子社会道德概念以及他们实际行为之间的一般关系的研究是非常重要的，因为社会化的最终目的是不仅是让孩子知道在道德上什么是对的什么是错的，而且要知道一般意义上什么是合理的什么是不合理的，但是他们仍会做相应的行为。现有的研究显示，孩子以及成人关于在道德困境以及反社会谎言的道德知识和道德行为，基本上是没有联系的(Arnold,1989;Blasi,1980;Talwar等2021,2021;Thoma和Rest,1986)。根据他们的道德和社会规则的概念性知识，为什么会无法做出说谎行为，众多理论给了许多解释(Arsenio和Lemerise,2021;Crick和Dodge,1994;Huesmann,2021;Rest,1986;Walker,2021)，包括涉及侵略(Crick和Dodge,1994;Huesmann,2021)或亲社会行为(Rest,1986)的情境。断开的一个主要的原因是，在假设情境下对道德和社会规则的解释和在实际情况下的道德和社会应有的恰当行为的解释不同。对于在道德和社会规则矛盾的情况下尤其的正确。举例来说，在一个亲社会的情境中，个人可能会出于礼貌的需要和避免伤害另外一个人，应该说亲社会的谎言。但是，当在现实生活黄总有相同的情境时，他们或许会将这种情景解释为只是为了获得成功应该说真话，并做出正确的陈述。另外，个人会将这种假设的情境解释为诚实的需要，但是在现实情境中，是出于礼貌并且避免伤害他人的需要。在这两种情境下，概念性的知识与实际的行为结果使不一致的。因此，为了实际的调查孩子对亲社会谎言的概念理解以及他们实际的说谎行为的关系，采用了两种方法来调查。首先，必须先调查孩子对假设亲社会情境下故事的解释，来测试他们对亲社会谎言的理解。其次，还必须要获得孩子他们再亲社会情境下自己实际的行为。这种测量的方法在先前研究中并没有采用过，所以与我们以往的知识有一定的差距：（a）在哪个年龄阶段，孩子开始理解在什么情境下应该说真话，什么情境下应该说礼貌的话并避免伤害他人，（b）在那个年龄阶段，孩子开始为了亲社会的理由开始说谎，（c）孩子对亲社会谎言的理解与他们实际行为是否有联系。这个研究就是为了弥合这些文字上的差距并且解释这三个重要的问题。在当前的研究中，我们对7、9以及11岁的中国儿童对亲社会谎言概念的理解以及在亲社会环境中说直率的真话的行为进行了评估。之所以选择这三个年龄阶段的学生，是因为现有研究显示在这个年龄阶段的儿童对亲社会谎言的概念的理解正在经历系统的改变(Broomfield等,2021;Bussey,2021;Walper和Valtin,1992;Zeng,2021)。并且，这种不断发展的趋势是西方儿童和中国儿童出现类似的情况(Broomfield等,2021;Zeng,2021)。中国儿童看故事主角遇到了一个亲社会环境（如，获得了一个不需要的礼物