Children's prosocial lie-telling in politeness situations and its relation to social variables
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
Due to the multi-faceted nature of lying, the development of children's lie-telling has received the attention of psychologists, educators, parents, and legal professionals.While recent research has focused on the conceptual understanding and moral evaluation of truth and lies, as well as children's actual lying behaviours, there has been little investigation of social variables related to the development of children's lie-telling behaviour.Therefore, the current research program sought to investigate social variables related to children's prosocial lying in politeness situations.Prosocial lies are evaluated differently from lies told to conceal a transgression, yet have not been the focus of a comprehensive examination in the developmental literature.This dissertation comprises two manuscripts that collectively contribute to the literature by exploring children's truth-and lie-telling in a politeness situation, and social variables related to its development.The first manuscript reports on two studies that investigated motivational and social factors affecting children's lying.In addition, the relationship between prosocial lying and children's moral understanding and evaluation of prosocial scenarios was examined.In Study 1, 72 children from the 2 nd and 4 th grades (Age: M = 8.38 years, SD = 0.56) participated in a disappointing gift paradigm with either high or low consequences for lying.Children were more likely to lie in the low-cost than high-cost condition.In Study 2, 117 children from preschool to late elementary school (Age: M = 8.04 years, SD = 2.03) also participated in a disappointing gift paradigm with high or low costs for lying, as well as answered questions regarding prosocial moral vignette scenarios.Neda Faregh.It has been a real pleasure working and learning from each of you and I feel privileged to have had such an opportunity.To my amazing and wonderful Talwar labmates who have been there from the beginning to share in the long and arduous hours of data collection and in the final stages with revisions and words of encouragement: Christine Saykaly, Sarah-
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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