Parenting by lying and its correlates across cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One particular form within the realm of parenting practices that may shape children's honesty is parenting by lying, which refers to parents' deceptive behavior typically used to elicit children's compliance (e.g., "If you misbehave, the police will come and arrest you!"; Heyman et al., 2009). Existing literature shows that this type of parental practice is widespread worldwide. For example, 78% of American parents and 98% of Chinese parents reported using such lies to gain behavioral control over their children (Roza et al., 2024; Setoh et al., 2024). The current research project aims to make a cross-national comparison between Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Japan, Poland, Romania, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Turkey on the deceptive behavior of parents with children aged 5-12 years, given its universality and potential cultural disparities that may arise. The relationship between parenting by lying and some individual and contextual factors is studied, such as lie acceptability, parents' socialization of lying, parents' practices and socialization goals for their children, and religiosity, which could be associated with children's internalization of honesty as well (Prodan et al., 2022; Talwar & Crossman, 2022; Tong & Talwar, 2021). This project would be the first to address differences in parenting by lying and various parental practices between countries culturally characterized by independence or interdependence, and those that are in transition from interdependence to independence. Manuscripts based on this data collection can significantly contribute to our understanding of how cultural dimensions influence different parental practices, with important implications for children's socio-cognitive and emotional development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".