Lying to friends: Examining lie‐telling, friendship quality, and depressive symptoms over time during late childhood and adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lie-telling appears to peak during adolescence; however, previous research has not yet examined lie-telling frequency in adolescents' friendships. Increased lie-telling may be problematic given that honesty is crucial for trust within positive relationships, and more positive relationships lead to more positive well-being. The present study examined adolescents' lies to friends and longitudinal associations between lying, friendship quality, and depressive symptoms. METHODS: = 11.65, SD = 11.75, 50% male) reported how often they lied to their friends about their mental health/mood, possessions, romantic relationships, school, and to avoid spending time with them. Participants also completed measures of friendship quality and depressive symptoms. Participants completed these measures at two time points one year apart. RESULTS: Poorer friendship quality predicted more frequent lie-telling over time. Greater depressive symptoms predicted more frequent lie-telling over time, and more frequent lie-telling predicted greater depressive symptoms over time. Lies about mental health in particular were bidirectionally associated with both friendship quality and depressive symptoms over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the developmental importance of lie-telling during adolescence. More negative friendships lead to greater lie-telling over time. Additionally, increased lie-telling predicted and is predicted by depressive symptoms, suggesting that lie-telling may be an important indicator of poor mental health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".