Peeking and lying in the temptation resistance paradigm in 2.5-year-olds: The role of inhibitory control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of the present study was to establish whether inhibitory control (IC) abilities influence the peeking and lying behaviours of 2.5-year-olds, as measured by a modified temptation resistance paradigm (mTRP). Using a longitudinal design, 252 children's IC abilities were tested at ages 1.5, 2 and 2.5, as well as their ability to lie at age 2.5. Results showed that 35% of 2.5-year-olds peeked, 27% of peekers lied and 40% of non-peekers falsely confessed they had peeked. Non-peekers had higher IC than peekers at ages 2 and 2.5. Lower IC at age 2 increased the probability of peeking at age 2.5 by 6 times. The highest level of IC was presented in children who followed the adult's restrictions in the mTRP and were then able to tell the truth about their behaviour. These results suggested that the first, or so-called primary, lies of 2.5-year-olds are probably spontaneous, rather than deliberate. Implications for further research were discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".