Shaping children's honesty: The influence of social learning and moral evaluations on 5- to 8-year old's truth- and lie-telling behavior
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lie-telling is considered to be part of children's development, emerging at similar ages across cultures.Children are socialized by their caregivers and through their surrounding environment to know what truth-and lie-telling is.Through socialization they learn the consequences of truthor lie-telling behaviours, leading to the internalization of these social sanctions and norms.While research has demonstrated the role of cognitive functioning in the development of lying, less research has examined the impact of socialization on children's lie-telling.The relationship between children's social learning and their actual truth/lie-telling behavior has yet to be examined.As such, the current study had two objectives; (a) to enhance our understanding of how children's truth-and lie-telling behaviour is influenced by social learning through modelling, and, (b) to examine how this social influence potentially interacts with children's moral understanding of lie-and truth-telling.In their schools, children (N = 224, 5 to 8 years of age) took part in two experimental sessions.Session 1 assessed their conceptual and moral understanding of truth-and lie-telling using a series of vignettes adapted from previous research, as well as assessed select cognitive functioning associated with successful lie-telling behavior (i.e.first-and second-order theory-of-mind understanding).Session 2 assessed children's actual truth-and lie-telling behavior when exposed to learning through social modelling using a temptation resistance paradigm (TRP).Children observed an experimenter (E) tell the truth or lie about a minor transgression in one of five conditions: (1) Truth-Positive -E told the truth with a positive outcome; (2) Truth-Negative -E told the truth with a negative outcome; (3) Lie-Positive -E lied with a positive outcome; (4) Lie-Negative -E lied with a negative outcome; (5) Control -E did not tell a lie or tell the truth.Later, to examine children's truth or lie-telling behaviour children participated in a TRP where they were told not to peek at a trivia question's answer.Overall, 85 % of children lied about peeking in the TRP, and with increased age children were CHILDREN'S TRUTH-AND LIE-TELLING iii better at maintaining their lies.Results found that children were less likely to lie about their transgression when they had seen the experimenter tell the truth with a positive outcome or when they saw the experimenter lie with a negative outcome.Children who rated the truth-telling behaviour of vignette characters who were believed and not punished more positively were more likely to confess to their transgression in the TRP.Children who rated the lie-telling behaviour of vignette characters who were not believed and not punished less negatively were also more likely to confess in the TRP.Practically, this research provides insight into factors that influence children's social motivation to lie or to tell the truth.These results have implications for the development of interventions for fostering honesty, for parents and professionals working with children across applied settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».