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