Parent‐reported problematic lying tendencies and BIS/BAS activity as predictors of children's antisocial lie‐telling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study examined whether age and parental reports of children's problematic lying, behavioural inhibition system (BIS) activity, and reward responsiveness predicted children's antisocial lie‐telling. Children from mostly middle and upper‐class Canadian families (ages 3–12, M = 6.23, SD = 2.52) participated in a modified Temptation Resistance Paradigm (TRP), where they were given opportunities to tell a self‐protective lie (to conceal a transgression) and an instrumental lie (to obtain a reward). Parents completed measures of their children's problematic lying tendencies, BIS activity, and reward responsiveness. Age and parent‐reported problematic lying and BIS activity were significant predictors of lie‐telling behaviour in the TRP. Instrumental liars were younger than dual liars (those who told both types of lies) and truth‐tellers. Truth‐tellers had lower parent‐reported problematic lying than instrumental and dual liars but not self‐protective liars. Dual liars had lower parent‐reported BIS activity than truth‐tellers; there were no differences among truth‐tellers, self‐protective liars, and instrumental liars. This study contributes to our understanding of the role of temperamental factors in children's lie‐telling propensity and the predictive utility of parent‐reported predictors for children's antisocial lie‐telling propensity. Our findings indicate that parents can identify and potentially address their children's problematic lying using their knowledge about their children's temperamental traits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".