To Disclose or Not to Disclose? The Influence of Consistently Disclosing and Disclosure Recipient on Perceptions of Children’s Credibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With age, children become increasingly likely to make initial disclosures of transgressions, such as maltreatment, to peers. The present study examined adults’ credibility evaluations of children’s disclosures to peers across two studies. Study 1 examined credibility evaluations when children disclosed (or concealed) to a peer compared to an adult. Study 2 examined credibility ratings when children disclosed consistently or inconsistently across peer and adult interviews. Children were interviewed by a same-age peer and an adult regarding an event where an adult confederate spilled water on a laptop and broke it. In Study 1, participants heard a child interviewed by either a same-age peer or adult. In Study 2, participants heard a child interviewed by both the same-age peer and adult. In both studies, participants evaluated the child’s credibility. Children who disclosed the transgression were rated as significantly less credible than those who concealed the transgression; however, credibility ratings did not differ by whether the child was interviewed by a peer or adult (Study 1). Furthermore, children who concealed the transgression across both interviews were rated as significantly more credible than children who disclosed in both interviews or disclosed to the peer, but not the adult, interviewer (Study 2). The current study provides the first evidence that peer disclosures may hinder children’s credibility and that adults may be hesitant to believe children’s disclosures of an adult’s transgression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".