Post on 21-Jan-2023
INFLUENCE OF OBEDIENCE ON LYING AMONG GRADE ONE
PUPILS OF SAN FRANCISCO DE SALES SCHOOL
A Research Submitted to Mr. Jemerson N. Dominguez
From the Psychology Department
De La Salle University – Dasmariñas
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For Experimental Psychology
Poblete, Patricia Belle, F.
Reyes,Jamille, A.
Malit, Sherlyn, D.
March, 2014
ABSTRACT
This study aims to know if there is influence of obedience on
lying among grade one pupils of San Francisco De Sales School. In
order to achieve this goal, a test was conducted to 60 students from
the said school. The researchers made use of close ended questions and
obtain the answers for the questions raised in the statement of the
problem. It was also used to determine the influence of obedience on
lying of the participants.
A hypothesis was formulated in order to provide the study with a
consistent path. The results indicated that Obedience has a
significant effect in lying and can be one factor why children lie. In
light of the results of the present study, the researchers suggest
that a further analysis can be carried out based on the present data
obtained.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to express their deepest gratitude tothose who played a great role for the completion of this study.
To our research adviser, Mr. Jemerson N. Dominguez, for theadvices and encouragement you rendered in order to make a good study.Thank you for the patience and for the knowledge that you have sharedto us.
To Mr. Levy Talay for asisting the researchers while doing theexperiment in San Francisco De Sales School. Thank you for yourhelping hand.
To the participants, for patiently cooperating and doing theinstructions given to them. Without you, this study will not bepossible.
To the family and friends of the researchers who showed theirunwavering support and encouragement to the researchers. Thank you foryour patience and understanding.
And most of all, to Our Heavenly Father who is the source ofknowledge, wisdom and strength of the researchers. You deserve all theglory and praises for this research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………I
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………...II
Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Statement of the problem………………………………………………………………….2
Hypothesis..............................................................................................................................2
Significance of the study……………………………………………………………………2
Definition of terms………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter 2………………………………………………………………………………………….4-10
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..9-10
Chapter 3…………………………………………………………………………………………11-13
Research Design…………………………………………………………………………….11
Research Instrument……………………………………………………………………….11
Statistical Treatment……………………………………………………………………….12
Data Gathering Procedure………………………………………………………………..12
Participants of the study…………………………………………………………………..12-13
Chapter 4……………………………………………………………………………………………14-16
Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………………………17-18
Appendices......………………………………………………………………………………………19-21
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………….22-25
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
___________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Lying is considered as a bad behavior. It is common in people of
all ages. It is an old belief that children do not lie. But as to the
Filipino setting, it can be observed that children (either boy or
girl), are very “expert” in lying. They tend not to say the truth to
escape from punishment, to get attention or just simply because they
want to.
Lying has been variously defined as those misinterpretations we
consider to be reprehensible (Scheibe, 1980), or a misinterpretation
with the intent to deceive (Bok, 1978; Nettler, 1982; Newson and
Newson; 1976). Most common definition of lying is that it is a verbal
statement meant to deceive.
Lying on children is different from lying of adults. They can be
caused by several factors. Like in the experiment conducted of Talwar
and Lee, children as young as 3 years old are not a candid truth
tellers. Result shows that most of the children made contradictory
statements from time to time. They usually tell white-lies to avoid
hurting others. This can be referred as white lies. White lies are
untruthful statements told without malignant or malicious intent.
(Bok, 1978) Unlike other lies that can be viewed as antisocial, white
lies are considered to have positive rather than negative values
attached to them. Children tend to lie because of two reasons: (1) to
avoid hurting others feelings and (2) to avoid negative reactions
towards them.
Due to this, the researchers come up with the idea that there are
several factors that can influence lying. One of it is obedience. In
many instances, obedience is a good thing. For instance, we want
people to obey the laws of our society; otherwise, chaos would ensue.
However sometimes we are asked to do things that we know are wrong—
things that may even cause harm to others. Error: Reference source not
found It came to a point where they become confuse to the definition
of obedience and lying. They tend to follow the authorities orders
(even if it is already lying) believing that it is still obedience.
This kind of obedience where you keep on complying with instructions
that causes harm to others or leads to a negative outcome is called
destructive obedience (Psychology Dictionary, 2013) .
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study is ought to know the significant difference of the
levels of obedience and lying among preschoolers and grade-schoolers.
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the frequency of the scores of the participants?
2. Is there a significant difference of the scores of the control and experimental group ?
3. Is there a significant effect of obedience to lying among the
grade one pupils?
HYPOTHESIS
HO: There is no significant effect of obedience to lying among the
grade one pupils.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The proposed paper will do an experiment about topics and studies
related to obedience and lying among grade school pupils of San
Francisco De Sales School.
The study aims to know the significant effect between obedience
and lying among grade school pupils.
At the end of the experiment, the experimenters are expected to
come up with a strong proof of the significant difference of lying and
obedience.
The result of this experiment will make the community,
specifically the students, professors, parents, and staffs, aware of
the possible impact of obedience in lying among children.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Grade-schoolers – 6-8 years old children will be randomly
selected as the participant for the experiment to be conducted by
the experimenters. They will be group into experimental and
control group.
Obedience - Obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social
influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or
orders from an authority figure" (Error: Reference source not
found. It is also used as independent variable in our study that
may or may not influence the act of lying among grade-schoolers.
Lying- There is no universally agreed upon definition of lying.
It is commonly agreed that, as contrasted with the verb
‘deceive,’ which is a success or achievement verb like ‘persuade’
or ‘cure,’ the verb ‘lie’ is not a success or achievement verb.
Error: Reference source not found. It is also used as an
dependent variable in our experiment that may or may not be
influenced by the independent variable among grade-schoolers.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
___________________________________________________________________________
This section presents related literatures and related studies. It
reveals the researchers’ inclusive understanding of the problem, its
nature concern, issues and growth. This section mentions references
from significant publication, books articles, internet sources that
are related to the study. It contains writings related to obedience
and lying.
LYING AND CHILDREN
Lying is a pervasive behavior in the adult world (DePaulo, Kashy,
Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). Furthermore, children, as young as
42 months, have been found to lie in laboratory settings for a variety
of reasons (Evans, Xu, & Lee, 2011; Polak & Harris, 1999; Popliger,
Talwar, & Crossman, 2011; Talwar & Lee, 2002). There is strong
evidence that the ability to lie is positively related to the
development of cognitive skills such as theory of mind and executive
functioning (Evans et al., 2011; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar, Gordon,
& Lee, 2007; Talwar & Lee, 2008).
However, little is known regarding whether children younger than
42 months will lie. Young children may not lie in the same sense as
adults or older children, which is deliberately stating a belief that
one does not believe with an intent to instill a false belief in the
listener (Chisholm & Feehan, 1977). Talwar and Lee (2008) proposed a
developmental model of lying. The first level of primary lies emerges
around 2–3 years of age when children begin to be able to deliberately
make factually untrue statements. However, they do not necessarily
take into consideration the mental states of the listener. Secondary
lies emerge around the age of 4 years and require children to
understand that the listener, unlike themselves, does not know the
true state of affairs and thus is susceptible to false beliefs.
Finally, around 7–8 years of age, children begin to reach tertiary
lies where they are able to conceal their lies by maintaining
consistency between their initial lie and follow-up statements. The
present investigation focuses on the emergence of young children’s
primary lies.
An estimated 50% of boys and girls engage in lying by age 6,
based on parent report.Error: Reference source not found. There had
been previous study about lying in children and it have been said that
children do lie, in fact there are different kinds of lying with
children classified by the Famous criminologist Cyril Burt.Error:
Reference source not found. In 1877, Charles Darwin suggested that
children as young as thirty months are capable of lying after seeing
his young son trying to deceive him. More recently, a team of
British psychologists used a natural observation method to spot 37
examples of lying behavior in a 30-month-old child. Child
researchers at the University of Waterloo reported that 65 percent of
two-year-olds and 94 percent of four-year-olds lied at least once.
Conscious and wilful saying of a thing that, is, known to be
incorrect is called lying. But we cannot accuse a 2 year old child
lying already. Because the child may not be aware of what he/she is
saying. According to Cyril Burt, there were different kinds of lying,
namely:
1. Playful lies - the child tells a lie just for the fun of it.
2. Lie of confusion- when something is in doubt, the child fails
to distinguish between true or false, and says that which is
false.
3. Lie of Vanity- some children lie for the sake of false vanity.
They talked of things that they have never done.
4. Lie of Revenge- sometimes the child who has been defeated and
has no means of wreaking revenge upon the winner, turns up
spreading false gossip and creating all kinds of false
information to manifest his superiority.
5. Selfish lie- telling deliberate lie In order to conceal some
fault of one’s own doing.
6. Lie of Loyalty- a child is very loyal to his group and tries
to cover up its objectionable activities by telling lies.
7. Pathological lie- some lying is the result of many
abnormalities and mental complexes of an individual. Such lies
resulting from mental diseases can arise due to the following
causes:
a) Overactive imagination,
b) Facility in the use of words,
c) To hide certain bad sex habits
ERIKSON’S PHYSIOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
According to Erik Erikson’s psychosocial development,
preschoolers belong to this stage, Initiative vs. Guilt (Locomotor-Genital,
Preschool, 4-5 years). Initiative adds to autonomy the quality of
undertaking, planning and attacking a task for the sake of just being
active and on the move. The child is learning to master the world
around them, learning basic skills and principles of physics. Things
fall down, not up. Round things roll. They learn how to zip and tie,
count and speak with ease. At this stage, the child wants to begin and
complete their own actions for a purpose. Guilt is a confusing new
emotion. They may feel guilty over things that logically should not
cause guilt. They may feel guilt when this initiative does not produce
desired results. The development of courage and independence are what
set preschoolers, ages three to six years of age, apart from other age
groups. Young children in this category face the challenge of
initiative versus guilt. As described in Bee and Boyd (2004), the
child during this stage faces the complexities of planning and
developing a sense of judgment. During this stage, the child learns to
take initiative and prepare for leadership and goal achievement roles.
Activities sought out by a child in this stage may include risk-taking
behaviors, such as crossing a street alone or riding a bike without a
helmet; both these examples involve self-limits.
Within instances requiring initiative, the child may also develop
negative behaviors. These behaviors are a result of the child
developing a sense of frustration for not being able to achieve a goal
as planned and may engage in behaviors that seem aggressive, ruthless,
and overly assertive to parents. Aggressive behaviors, such as
throwing objects, hitting, or yelling, are examples of observable
behaviors during this stage.
Preschoolers are increasingly able to accomplish tasks on their
own, and can start new things. With this growing independence comes
many choices about activities to be pursued. Sometimes children take
on projects they can readily accomplish, but at other times they
undertake projects that are beyond their capabilities or that
interfere with other people's plans and activities. If parents and
preschool teachers encourage and support children's efforts, while
also helping them make realistic and appropriate choices, children
develop initiative- independence in planning and undertaking
activities. But if, instead, adults discourage the pursuit of
independent activities or dismiss them as silly and bothersome,
children develop guilt about their needs and desires.
While Competence: Industry vs. Inferiority (Latency, 5-12 years)
is about grade schoolers.
The aim to bring a productive situation to completion gradually
supersedes the whims and wishes of play. The fundamentals of
technology are developed. To lose the hope of such "industrious"
association may pull the child back to the more isolated, less
conscious familial rivalry of the oedipal time.
"Children at this age are becoming more aware of themselves as
individuals." They work hard at "being responsible, being good and
doing it right." They are now more reasonable to share and cooperate.
Allen and Marotz (2003) also list some perceptual cognitive
developmental traits specific for this age group. Children grasp the
concepts of space and time in more logical, practical ways. They gain
a better understanding of cause and effect, and of calendar time. At
this stage, children are eager to learn and accomplish more complex
skills: reading, writing, telling time. They also get to form moral
values, recognize cultural and individual differences and are able to
manage most of their personal needs and grooming with minimal
assistance. At this stage, children might express their independence
by talking back and being disobedient and rebellious.
Erikson viewed the elementary school years as critical for the
development of self-confidence. Ideally, elementary school provides
many opportunities for children to achieve the recognition of
teachers, parents and peers by producing things- drawing pictures,
solving addition problems, writing sentences, and so on. If children
are encouraged to make and do things and are then praised for their
accomplishments, they begin to demonstrate industry by being diligent,
persevering at tasks until completed, and putting work before
pleasure. If children are instead ridiculed or punished for their
efforts or if they find they are incapable of meeting their teachers'
and parents' expectations, they develop feelings of inferiority about
their capabilities.
At this age, children start recognizing their special talents and
continue to discover interests as their education improves. They may
begin to choose to do more activities to pursue that interest, such as
joining a sport if they know they have athletic ability, or joining
the band if they are good at music. If not allowed to discover own
talents in their own time, they will develop a sense of lack of
motivation, low self-esteem, and lethargy. They may become "couch
potatoes" if they are not allowed to develop interests.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Lying was an early topic of investigation in developmental
psychology (Hartshorne & May, 1928; Piaget, 1932). Since the 1980s,
the topic, after being neglected for nearly half a century, has
received renewed attention from developmental psychologists with
diverse theoretical orientations and research purposes. The reasons
for the current interest in the development of lying are both
theoretical and practical. Theoretically, research on the issue has
implications for current debates about children’s theory of mind
(Chandler, Fritz, & Hala, 1989; Peskin, 1992; Polak & Harris, 1999)
and the universality of moral development (Lee, 2000; Shweder,
Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987). Research on the issue also has practical
implications for developing moral education programs in schools and
for assessing children’s testimony in legal settings (Burton &
Strichartz, 1991; Goodman, 1984).
OBEDIENCE
(INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
LYING
(DEPENDENT VARIABLE)AUTHORITY ORDER
(TREATMENT)
Lying have not been given a lot of importance for a long time for
majority of the society might be thinking that lying is not a very
important issue to be discussed and might not have a lot of impact on
the society. But some researchers thought that lying could probably
have a great influence on children’s mindsets especially during their
developmental stage.
According to a developmental model of lying first proposed by
Victoria Talwar and Kang Lee, children around the age of two to three
years begin lying by telling primary lies which are designed to
conceal transgressions but fail to take the mental state of the
listener into consideration. Around the age of four, children learn to
tell secondary lies which are more plausible and geared to the
listener's mental development. By age seven or eight, children learn
to tell tertiary lies which are more consistent with known facts and
follow-up statements. The present investigation focuses on the
emergence of young children’s primary lies.
Obedience is compliance with commands given by an authority
figure. In the 1960s, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram did a
well-known research study called the obedience study. It showed that
people have a strong tendency to comply with authority figures. In
line with this, the researchers wanted to know if there is an
influence of obedience and lying among Grade-schoolers.
Through the children’s development stage, development of the
severity of lying might or might not incur. The purpose or the
knowledge of lying however will change from time to time.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the researchers outlined the methodology used to
conduct the study. It presents the research design, the research
participants, the sampling procedure, the research instrument, and the
data analysis to be used in the study.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design that was used in the study is true
experimental design, specifically the posttest only Control Group
Design. True experimental design includes both control and
experimental group which involves random selection and random
assignment of the subjects. The researchers use the posttest only
control group design since the subjects are already exposed to the
treatment and will be time consuming to do the process. This
experiment has a large group that this design can control most of the
same threats to internal and external validity.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The researchers will be providing a set of five item
questionnaires to each participant in the control and experimental
group that will test the participant's obedience and lying. The
questionnaire contains two negative statements and three positive. The
questions pertains to their teacher’s attitude and performance.
The general instructions for this test is to put a smiling face
if the answer is true and sad face if it is false. The participants
will be told that the questionnaire is some sort of evaluation of
their teacher performance in class.After distributing the
questionnaires, the researchers will leave the room for a while
telling the participants that they will just get “something” and will
be back shortly. At this time, the teacher that is being evaluated
will give order to the participants that they must automatically
(without reading) answer a smiling face on the second question located
in the questionnaire that states that, “Laging namamalo si Titser _____.” This
question is a negative statement that whom the researchers already
proved to be a false statement. This serves as the reference item for
the researcher to determine if the participants obeyed or did not. All
responses of the subjects will all be noted and well observed by the
researchers.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
The researchers asked the permission of the principal of San
Francisco De Sales School in San Pedro, Laguna to conduct the research
experiment. The researchers also asked for the help of the principal
to have a list of all the grade school students. After having a list
of all the students, the researchers randomly selected and randomly
assigned the sixty subjects to the control and experimental group.
The researchers informed the subjects about the study and gave
the consent and assent letter to be submitted on February 14, 2014,
Friday. After having the consent and assent letters, the researchers
immediately start the experiment.
STATISTICAL TREATMENT
T-test for independent sample was used in this study. T-test for
independent sample is a parametric procedure employed in testing the
difference between two mean scores. T-test for independent sample was
used by the researchers to know if there obedience has a significant
effect on the lying behavior of grade one students of San Francisco De
Sales School.
PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY
The participants in the study are the grade one students of San
Francisco De Sales School enrolled for the school year 2013 – 2014.
They were chosen because the researchers believed that children is not
fond of lying.
Certain criteria were set for students to participate in the
study.
Enrolled in school year 2013-2014 in San Francisco De Sales
School
Grade one student
Willing to participate
Obtain the consent of parents/guardian to participate if
they are less than 18 years of age
Be of either sex or any race
The participants in the study are the 60 grade one pupils of San
Francisco De Sales School, San Pedro, Laguna. The participants were
randomly selected and randomly assigned using simple random sampling.
The participants will be divided into two groups, wherein each group
is consists of thirty participants. There will be one control group
and one experimental group.
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
This chapter presents the results, discussion, and analysis of
data gathered from this study.
Problem 1: What is the frequency of the scores of the participants?
Table 1: Summary table of the frequency scores of the participants
PARTICIPANTS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
DID NOT FOLLOW 34 56.7
OBEYED and LIED 26 43.4
TOTAL: 60 100
Table 1 shows the frequency scores of the participants who lied,
obeyed and did not follow the order of their teacher. Participants
who did not follow has a frequency of 34 and has a percentage of 56.7,
participants who obeyed and at the same time lied has a frequency of
26 with a percentage of 43.4. This gives the researchers a total of 60
respondents with 100% percentage.
The researchers get the score by focusing on the number 2
question in the answer sheet that states that, “Laging namamalo si titser
_____”. The teacher being reffered to is also the one who gives order to
the participants to answer smiling face on this question which means
that the teacher is always namamalo. Those who answers a smiling face
are counted as the ones who obeyed and at the same time lied.
Most of the participants did not follow their teacher’s command.
This goes to show that even though there is a presence of order of an
authority, the participants which were grade one pupils aged 6 to 8
years old and studying at San Francisco De Sales School, will not
follow orders just for the sake of lying.
Problem 2: Is there a significant difference of the scores of the
control and experimental group?
Table 2 Summary table for the computed T-test between control and authority
experimental group
SIG. T DF
.000 -5.705 58
Table 3 shows the summary table of the data used in determining
if there is a significant difference of the scores of the control and
experimental group. The researchers used t-test to obtain the answer.
In order to come up with such data, the researchers seek the help of
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). After
computing, the t is equals to -5.705, with a DF of 58 and significant
value of .000.
Since the significant value which is .000, we reject the Ho and
accept Ha because there is a significant difference of the scores of
the control and experimental group among the grade one pupils. This
means that the scores in one condition vary much more than the scores
in the second condition.
Problem 3: Is there a significant effect of obedience on lying among
the grade one pupils?
Table 3: Summary of the computed t-scores
F Sig. T df
8.512 0.005 -2.269 58
Table 3 shows the summary of the computed t scores. In order to
come up with such data, the researchers use SPSS to be able to obtain
the computed scores of the participants who obey and those who did not
obey.
The researcher’s wanted to know if obedience can influence lying.
Since tobt is greater than tcrit, the alternative hypothesis that states
that obedience has a significant effect on lying among grade one
pupils of San Francisco De Sales School must be accepted. But because
of the Sig. (2-tailed) value is 0.02 and is less than 0.05, it goes to
show that we can conclude that there is a statistically significant
difference between the mean number of participants who lied and obeyed
on the two conditions. Since our Group Statistics box revealed that
the Mean for disobey was greater than the Mean for those who obey we
can conclude that obedience has a significant effect on lying.
This is supported by the developmental model of lying first
proposed by Victoria Talwar and Kang Lee. According to them, lying
among children is not lying alone. It can be caused by many factors.
The theory also states that because of the children’s young age, they
are still confused if what they are doing is already lying or they are
just doing the “other” factor.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents the summary, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
Summary of Findings
The researchers present the following findings:
1. Majority of the grade one pupils did not follow their teacher’s
order.
2. There is a significant difference of the scores of the control and
experimental group.
3. There is a significant effect of obedience on lying among the grade
one pupils of San Francisco De Sales School.
Conclusions
In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were
made:
1. Even though there is a presence of order of an authority, the
participants which were grade one pupils aged 6 to 8 years old and
studying at San Francisco De Sales School, will not follow orders just
for the sake of lying.
2. The scores this means that the scores in the control group vary
much more than the scores in the experimental group.
3. Obedience has a significant effect in lying and can be one factor
why children lie.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The researchers would like to present the following
recommendations:
1. Authority figures should be aware and more responsible in doing
acts in front of the children because they could imitate this without
even knowing that it is wrong.
2. At such early age, participants must learn what is lying to b able
to guide the, well.
3. Lying of grade one pupils is not lying alone. They can be several
factors causing it.
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Computation Table
Table 1:
Group Statistics
group N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
scoreCG 30 .23 .568 .104
EG 30 1.37 .928 .169
Table 2:
For statement of the problem number 3:
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Testfor Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.(2-
tailed)
MeanDiffere
nce
Std.ErrorDifference
99% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
score
Equal variances assumed
21.485 .000-
5.705
58 .000 -1.133 .199 -1.662 -.604
Equal variances not assumed
-5.70
5
48.075
.000 -1.133 .199 -1.666 -.601
Table 3:
Group Statistics
VERDICT N Mean Std. Deviation Std. ErrorMean
PARTICIPANTSobey 26 24.8462 12.14147 2.38114
disobey 34 34.8235 19.72765 3.38326
Table 4
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Testfor Equalityof Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.(2-tailed)
MeanDifference
Std.ErrorDifference
95%ConfidenceInterval of
theDifference
Lower Upper
PARTICIPANTS
Equal variances assumed
8.512 .005-
2.269
58 .027-
9.97738
4.39795
-18.780
82
-1.1739
3
Equal variances not assumed
-2.412
55.737
.019-
9.97738
4.13718
-18.266
01
-1.6887
4
Appendix B: Tools or Instruments
Pangalan: Greyd/Pangkat:
Edad:
Panuto: Basahin at unawain ng mabuti ang mga tanong. Iguhit ang sad face() kapag hindi ka sang-ayon at smiling face () kapag ikaw ay sang-ayon.
1. Nagdadasal si titser ______ bago ang klase.
2. Laging namamalo si titser ______.
3. Mabait sa amin si titser ______.
4. Nagbibigay ng assignment si titser ______.
5. Hindi ko naiintindihan si titser ______.
REFERENCES
BOOKS
Beal, C.R. (1988). Children’s knowledge about representation of intended
meaning. In P. L. Harris, J. W. Astington, & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Developing
theories of mind (pp. 315–325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beal, C.R., & Flavell, J.H. (1984). Development of the ability to distinguish
communicative intention and literal message meaning. Child Development, 55,
920–928.
Burton, R.V., & Strichartz, A.F. (1991). Children on the stand: The obligation
to speak the truth. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 12, 121–128.
Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children’s de.nitions, standards and
evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63, 129–137.
Bussey, K. (1999). Children’s categorization and evaluation of different types of
lies and truths. Child Development, 70, 1338–1347.
Chandler, M., Fritz, A.S., &Hala, S. (1989). Small-scale deceit: Deception as a
marker of two-, three-, and four-year-olds’ early theories of mind. Child
Development, 60, 1263–1277.
Cleland, C., & Lewis, M. (2000). Children’s discomfort following a minor
transgression. Unpublished manuscript.
Cole, P. (1986). Children’s spontaneous control of facial expression. Child
Development, 57, 1309–1321.
DePaulo, B.M., & Jordan, A. (1982). Age changes in deceiving and detecting
deceit. In R.S. Feldman (Ed.), Development of nonverbal communication in
children (pp.151–179). New York: Springer-Verlag.
DePaulo, B.M. Stone, J.I. & Lassiter, G.D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting
deceit. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ekman, P., & Freisen, W.V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.
Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.
Ekman, P., &O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist,
46, 913–920.
Feldman, R.S., Jenkins, L., & Popoola, O. (1979). Detection of deception in
adults and children via facial expressions. Child Development, 50, 350–355.
Feldman, R.S., &White, J.B. (1980). Detecting deception in children. Journalof
Communication, 30, 121–128.
Goodman, G.S. (1984). Children’s testimony in historical perspective. Journal of
Social Issues, 40, 9–31.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1928). Studies in the nature of character (Vol. 1.
Studies in deceit). New York: MacMillan.
Lee, K. (2000). Lying as doing deceptive things with words: A speech act
theoretical perspective. In J.W. Astington (Ed.), Mind in the making (pp.
177–196). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
ONLINE REFERENCES:
ADELSON, R. (AUGUST 2004). Detecting deception. page 70.
Azodi, M. (n.d.). The Body Language of Liars. Retrieved from
www.cosmopolitan.com:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/relationship-advice/liar-body-
language-0509#slide-1
Bond, C. F., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., &
Kirk, C. T. (Dec 1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from
expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63(6) .
Dachis, A. (2011). How to Read Body Language to Reveal the Underlying Truth in
Almost Any Situation. Retrieved 2011, from www.lifehacker.com:
http://lifehacker.com/5852572/how-to-read-and-utilize-body-language-
to-reveal-the-truth-in-almost-any-situation
MCKAY, B. &. (2010). Become a Human Lie Detector: How to Sniff Out a Liar.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/.
Bifloo. (n.d.). How to Detect Lies. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php
Danny. (n.d.). The Art of Mentalism. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from
http://danielakawmd.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/eight-of-the-most-common-
lying-gestures/
Ensha. (n.d.). Examine Hand Gestures and Smiles to Detect Lying. Retrieved June
19, 2013, from http://lifehacker.com/5368068/examine-hand-gestures-
and-smiles-to-detect-lying
IndiaBIX. (n.d.). Body Language: Hand to Face Gestures . Retrieved June 19,
2013, from http://www.indiabix.com/body-language/hand-to-face-
gestures/
Matsumoto, D. P. (n.d.). Evaluating Truthfulness amd Detecting Deception.
Retrieved June 19, 2013, from
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-
bulletin/june_2011/school_violence