Relations among lie-telling self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and willingness to tell antisocial lies among children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined a proposed model of relations among lie-telling self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and willingness to tell antisocial lies among children and adolescents. Children and adolescents aged 6 to 15 years completed measures of lie-telling self-efficacy and moral disengagement. They also read vignettes about a character committing a transgression and telling a lie to conceal the transgression. For each vignette, children and adolescents made a hypothetical decision about telling the truth or a lie if they were in the character's position to assess their lie-telling propensity. Lie-telling self-efficacy was related to willingness to tell lies, and this relationship was mediated by moral disengagement. Children and adolescents with higher lie-telling self-efficacy had higher moral disengagement, and those who had higher moral disengagement were more willing to tell antisocial lies. Overall, results support Bandura's social cognitive theory as a framework for understanding the psychosocial mechanisms underlying attitudes toward lie-telling. Moreover, these findings suggest that interventions to address problematic lie-telling behavior should focus on children's and adolescents' use of moral disengagement mechanisms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".