MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389484613 · doi:10.1080/10888691.2023.2267446

Revised Socialization of Lying Questionnaire: a reflection of parent moral identity?

2023· article· en· W4389484613 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Developmental Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLyingHonestySocializationPsychologySocial psychologyIdentity (music)DishonestyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study provides a validated, revised Socialization of Lying Questionnaire (Revised-SoL) and assesses how parent socialization of lying relates to parents’ moral identity more broadly. Four factors were empirically validated: (1) the direct socialization of honesty; (2) indirect socialization via parents’ modeling of lying behavior; (3) parents’ discipline of lying and reinforcement of honesty; and (4) parents’ perceptions of their child’s problematic lying. We found that parents direct and indirect socialization of honesty was associated with having a higher (parent) internalized moral identity and identity of themselves as an honest person. Overall, our results suggest that parents’ own methods for socializing their children about lying and honesty are interconnected with their own moral self-identities and that the revised-SoL is a good measure for capturing both direct and indirect approaches for socializing children about lying and honesty.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it