Humans can be an untrusting race. People are often very cynical about human nature, tending to think that strangers will happily lie to us if there is something in it for them.
We intuitive believe that being cynical is an advantage in detecting lies. Or so Nancy Carter and J. Mark Weber found when they asked a group of MBA students whether people high or low in trust would be better at detecting lies in others (Carter & Weber, 2010).
The results were as we’d expect: 85% thought low trusters are better than high trusters at lie detection.
Is this the right answer though? Are low-trusters really better at detecting lies?
Liar liar
Carter and Weber weren’t so sure, so they measured how trusting 29 participants were and had them watch videos of a staged job interview.
In these videos, interviewees had been told to do their best to get the job, but half were told to tell three lies in the process.
These videos were then shown to participants who rated the honesty of the interviewees, along with how likely they would be to hire them.
Surprisingly, it was those highest in trusting others that emerged as the superstar lie detectors. High trusters were more sensitive to deceit and more accurate at detecting which of the interviewees were lying.
Contrary to our expectations it was those low in trusting others who performed worst. They were least accurate at spotting liars and most likely to hire one of the interviewees who had been lying.
It seemed that the high-trusters were more likely to pay attention to the classic signs of lying, which include fidgeting and changes in vocal intonation and quality.
This leaves us with a counter-intuitive finding to explain: high-trusters, rather than being poor at spotting lies, actually outperform their less trusting counterparts. We’d expect low trusters to be more on the lookout for deceptive behaviour and yet they don’t perform as well as those who are more trusting.
What is going on? Why is our intuition so wrong?
Social intelligence
Although this research can’t tell us why—it only gives us the result—it does suggest a couple of reasons why high-trusters might be better at detecting lies:
- Sensitivity: People may become more trusting of others because they are sensitive to lies. Since they are better able to detect them, they have to worry less about being duped.
- Risk-taking: On the other hand, through taking social risks, some people may learn how to detect lies more accurately. Those who don’t practice because they never take any social risks, never learn how to discern lie from truth.
- Welcome to the Online Psychology Laboratory! OPL provides highly interactive resources for the teaching of psychological science.
- School psychology resources for school psychogists parents and educators. Research learning disabilities ADHD autism behavior problems.
- Get qualified your next career in Psychology with a college degree. Trusted online schools offer convenient programs for psychologists counselors.
- Jump to Online Bibliographies: Child Development Abstracts and Bibliography: Online Edition This is the online searchable edition of the most complete.
The Journal of Health Psychology first published in 1996 is a peer-reviewed psychology journal published by Sage Publications. The managing editor is David Marks.Scope
The focus of the journal is research in health psychology from the perspective of empirical qualitative and critical analysis and studies. Social contexts in which the psychology and health studies occur are also taken into account. Topical coverage includes clinical health psychology community health psychology critical health psychology medical psychology and clinical psychology.
Publishing formats include reports of empirical studies critical reviews of the literature book reviews contributions related to theory commentaries related to theory and editorials on what are deemed to be significant issues. Besides a suggested maximum of 6000 words for articles brief reports are usually limited to 3000 words.
Abstracting and indexing
This journal is indexed in the following databases:
Thomson Reuters
Social Sciences Citation Index
Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences
Academic Search Elite
ClinPSYC
EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
Index Medicus & MEDLINE
PsycINFOReferences
^ a b “About this journal”. Journal of Health Psychology. Sage Publications. http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?ct_p=boards&prodId=Journal200899#tabview=title. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ “LCCN Permalink for Journal of Health Psychology”. Online catalog. Library of Congress. http://lccn.loc.gov/96659556 Library of Congress. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ “Manuscript submission”. Journal of Health Psychology. Sage Publishing. http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal200899#tabview=manuscriptSubmission Manuscript submission. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ “Journal Search – Science”. Master Journal List. Thomson Reuters. http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1359-1053. Retrieved 2010-11-21.Further reading
David Marks; Brian Evans and Carla Willig (July 2005). Health Psychology: Theory Research and Practice. Sage Publications. ISBN 9781412903370. http://books.google.com/books?id=bqcUWgtrpAwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Health psychology: Theory research and practice&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false.External links
Official website
The Division of Health Psychology – The British Psychological Society. November 2010.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Health_Psychology”University of the Rockies (UoR) is a private for-profit graduate school located in Colorado Springs Colorado. As of February 2011 the university offers three different Master of Arts degrees: Master of Arts in Human Services Master of Arts in Organizational Development and Leadership and Master of Arts in Psychology. Students enhance their MA program by selecting one of sixteen to eighteen concentrations (depending on campus vs online format). UoR also offers a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) program with fifteen available concentrations in the campus-based PsyD program and fourteen via its online PsyD format. The PsyD degree in Clinical Psychology (to become licensed clinical psychologists) is offered only on campus. Students who are pursuing a career in the field of consulting for business organizations may choose any of several non-clinical PsyD concentrations available either on campus or online. Most recently UoR received approval from The Higher Learning Commission to offer a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) of Organizational Development and Leadership. UoR also offers four graduate-level certificate programs (on campus and online): Business Psychology Criminology and Justice Studies General Psychology and Organizational Leadership.
The universitys parent organization Bridgepoint Education Inc. is a for-profit higher education company based in San Diego California. University of the Rockies is regionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The university has also been granted Category I status as a degree-granting institution by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). University of the Rockies is an associate member of the National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology. Finally University of the Rockies has been approved to offer CE credit through the American Psychological Association (APA).
Campus
Housed in an historic red brick former train station University of the Rockies is located in Colorado Springs Colorado.
History
University of the Rockies was founded June 18 1998 as the Colorado School of Professional Psychology (COSPP) to provide a professional graduate education in psychology to individuals who seek licensure as psychologists or practice in other arenas of the profession. When Bridgepoint Education acquired COSPP in September 2007 the name was changed to University of the Rockies. The Colorado School of Professional Psychology is now a school within the larger University of the Rockies.
University of the Rockies Press
University of the Rockies Press (UoR Press) is a publishing enterprise of the university which publishes and disseminates books on clinical psychology religion and spirituality business and organizational leadership and health and well-being.
This Wikibook is about educational psychology–the study of how learning and teaching occur in educational settings. It is divided into chapters as listed below which are preceded by an introduction that describes the features of the book in some detail. Initially most of the contributions have been made by myself Kelvin Seifert a professor of educational psychology at the University of Manitoba Canada though Chapter 10 and 11 (about assessment of learning) were drafted primarily by Rosemary Sutton a professor of educational psychology at Cleveland State University. This may change over time–others may join and eventually I may leave. If you wish to contact me try leaving a note on my talk page.
The sections below introduce the features of the book. If you want to skip the introduction go directly to the Table of Contents.
Features of Contemporary Educational Psychology
The book is divided into thirteen chapters each dealing with topics themes and examples that represent one way of understanding educational psychology (admittedly my way at least when the book was first posted). The overall organization resembles that of many commercial ed psych texts but a careful look will show that it is definitely not identical with others.
Paralleling the PRAXIS II “Principles of Learning and Teaching”
A key difference is that content is intended to parallel the content of the commonly used PRAXIS II test called Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) published by the Educational Testing Service. The PLT test is required in 25-30 American states for persons seeking permanent certification as public school teachers. If you happen to live in a U.S. state requiring a licensure exam for becoming a teacher you may be familiar with the PRAXIS tests and hopefully will appreciate the way this Wikibook is organized.
The decision to organize according to the PLT was based on the assumption that preparing for this exam would be easier if the text content mapped onto PLT topics in a straightforward one-to-one manner. This is admittedly a rather simple assumption but one that seemed at least worth trying. It has proved easier to implement for some topics and chapters than for others. You must of course be the ultimate judge of the book’s success in mapping onto the PLT. Your assessment will depend a lot on your particular needs in preparing for licensure as a teacher. In any case since this is a Wikibook suggestions (on the discussion pages) or editing (on the “real” pages) are especially welcome.
Several motivations lead people to contribute to virtual communities. Various online media (i.e. Blogs Chat rooms Electronic mailing lists Internet forums Wikis) are becoming ever greater knowledge-sharing resources. Many of these communities are highly cooperative and establish their own unique culture. They also involve significant time from contributors with no monetary gain.
Knowledge sharing infrastructures
Some key examples of online knowledge sharing infrastructures include the following:
Wikipedia: An online publicly editable encyclopaedia with hundreds of thousands of editors
Slashdot: A popular technology-related forum with articles and comments from readers. Slashdot subculture has become well-known in Internet circles. Users accumulate a “karma score” and volunteer moderators are selected from those with high scores.
Usenet: Established in 1980 as a “distributed Internet discussion system”[citation needed] it became the first medium for Internet communities. Volunteer moderators and votetakers contribute to the community.
Etc. (the Web2.0 is also referred to as the writable web for indicating that many people participate to the creation of its content)In the past important online knowledge sharing infrastructures included:
AOL: The largest of the online service providers with chat rooms which for years were voluntarily moderated by community leaders. It should be noted that rooms and most message boards are no longer moderated however.
The WELL: A pioneering online community established in 1985. The WELL’s culture has been the subject of several books and articles.Can anyone give me some good links to free online psychology counseling where I can get my answers?
Can anyone give me some good links to free online psychology counseling where I can get my answers? I have found links through search engines but they only provide free advice advertisements of e-books etc. but not the option to ask and get answers.Here you have some useful tips:
http://www.metanoia.org/imhs/
There is a plenty of such sites unfortunately I don’t know about the competences of the providers. Most of them aren’t free.
I know that Samaritans will answer you for free however they are volunteers not psychologists:
http://www.samaritans.org/Many users voluntarily contribute to community building and maintenance (e.g. as conference hosts).
Theories
Several researchers have investigated motivation in virtual communities. Studies show that over the long term users gain a greater insight into the material that is being discussed and a sense of connection to the world at large.
Peter Kollock researched motivations for contributing to online communities. Kollock (1999 p. 227) outlines three motivations that do not rely on altruistic behavior on the part of the contributor: anticipated reciprocity; increased recognition; and sense of efficacy.
There is another motivation implicit in the above which Marc Smith mentions in his 1992 thesis: Voices from the WELL: The Logic of the Virtual Commons: “Communion” as Smith terms it or “sense of community” as it is referred to in social psychology.
Anticipated reciprocity
A person is motivated to contribute valuable information to the group in the expectation that one will receive useful help and information in return. Indeed there is evidence that active participants in online communities get more responses faster to questions than unknown participants (Kollock 1999 p.
On top of these two factors we also have to take into account people’s innate ability. Some people are naturally gifted at reading body language and have higher social intelligence, while others have to work more at it.
Risk and reward
Whatever the explanation, it emphasizes how automatically trusting others—sometimes without due cause—can be beneficial. The problem for the low truster is that without trusting strangers a little, it’s very hard to take social risks.
Say you are invited out by someone you hardly know to a restaurant. Refusing on the basis that they must have some evil ulterior motive might be safer, but you might miss out on a great new friend.
The same goes in business. Trust is the basis for commercial relationships: good deals rely on both parties doing their bit, often without knowing that much about each other. A business person who doesn’t trust anyone will find it harder to succeed.
While low trusters avoid being duped they also miss out on potential opportunities. High trusters, on the other hand, get the best of both worlds: they frequently spot when someone is lying to them, and they are able to take social risks earlier in the relationship and so can reap the rewards, whether social or financial.
Image credit: Mohamed Hussain
→ How to be more creative: get PsyBlog’s creativity ebook.
