Children’s endorsement of prosocial lies according to content and recipient knowledge
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and adults use prosocial lies in their everyday conversational exchanges. However, their use of this language form varies across contexts. Extending work demonstrating the importance of conversational partner knowledge for communicative decisions, we examine whether children (ages 8–11 years old; N = 81) and adults’ ( N = 218) endorsement of prosocial lies (and truths) differ based on whether a recipient is/is not knowledgeable of the context. Additionally, we examine whether such endorsements varied based on whether the lie (or truth) was about their opinion or the objective reality. Participants were asked to imagine themselves within a scenario with another person who was unaware/aware of a negative event. They then rated how likely they would be to use truth/lie statements which varied in content (i.e., reference to opinion or reality). While children endorsed statements similarly for ignorant/knowledgeable recipients, adults were more likely to endorse telling a prosocial lie when the recipient was ignorant of the negative event. Both groups indicated higher likelihood of telling a prosocial lie about an opinion versus reality. Addressing individual factors, self-reported empathy was not associated with children’s responses but was associated with adults’ communicative choices. Together this work provides information as to how children (and adults) use varying language forms to navigate social situations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it