Difference between revisions of "Rodriguez-Ryave1990"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Noelie | + | |Author(s)=Noelie Rodriguez; Alan Ryave |
| − | |Title=Telling | + | |Title=Telling lies in everyday life: Motivational and organizational consequences of sequential preferences |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Preference; Lies | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Preference; Lies | ||
|Key=Rodriguez-Ryave1990 | |Key=Rodriguez-Ryave1990 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=13 | |Volume=13 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=195–210 |
| − | |Abstract=This | + | |URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00989593 |
| − | contrast | + | |DOI=10.1007/BF00989593 |
| + | |Abstract=This study of a collection of self-observed lies told in everyday interactions indicated that all informants lied; that lying was, generally, an easy and spontaneous activity; and that our varied informants told lies in much the same manner and for the same reasons. The analysis of the general features of the interactions in which lies were embedded showed that many lies are the consequence of a preference system that promotes acceptance and hides rejection in the sequential organization of interaction. The lies found in “pre-acceptance” and “pre-rejection” sequences indicate that both parties contrive for acceptance. The negative cases of lies told in rejection of deprecating assessments suggest a broader theoretical template that encompasses the lies told for acceptance as a subset of the interactional preference for social solidarity. In contrast to the view that telling lies undermines social cohesion by interfering with trust, this study indicates that many lies are told to affirm affiliation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:00, 14 February 2016
| Rodriguez-Ryave1990 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Rodriguez-Ryave1990 |
| Author(s) | Noelie Rodriguez, Alan Ryave |
| Title | Telling lies in everyday life: Motivational and organizational consequences of sequential preferences |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Preference, Lies |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1990 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Sociology |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 195–210 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF00989593 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study of a collection of self-observed lies told in everyday interactions indicated that all informants lied; that lying was, generally, an easy and spontaneous activity; and that our varied informants told lies in much the same manner and for the same reasons. The analysis of the general features of the interactions in which lies were embedded showed that many lies are the consequence of a preference system that promotes acceptance and hides rejection in the sequential organization of interaction. The lies found in “pre-acceptance” and “pre-rejection” sequences indicate that both parties contrive for acceptance. The negative cases of lies told in rejection of deprecating assessments suggest a broader theoretical template that encompasses the lies told for acceptance as a subset of the interactional preference for social solidarity. In contrast to the view that telling lies undermines social cohesion by interfering with trust, this study indicates that many lies are told to affirm affiliation.
Notes
