Development of Deception in Children

Theresa Student, Psychology 199, Fall and Winter 2015

Your faculty advisor will have to read the completed paper prior to submission. Their

signature and date, indicating approval of the paper, is required.

researched as part of the PSYC 199 course. It is a full-length literature review

article.

For further information about the BS paper requirement, please visit:

http://www.psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/majors-effective-fall-

Name, when research was

College, faculty advisor

This is an example of a research paper that was written in fulfillment of the B.S.

Running head: DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 1

Theresa Student

Department of Psychology

University of California, San Diego

Author Note

Theresa Student, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego.

Article title

Author note

Author Notes have up to four paragraphs. These often discuss author affiliation, any

change affiliation, acknowledgments, and addresses for correspondence.

the Abstract. However, an Abstract is optional for the B.S. degree paper.

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 2

Although parents condemn lying and emphasize the importance of honesty, many parents

lie to their own children (Heyman et al., 2009). In addition, many children tell different types of

lies more often than parents like to believe. Learning to lie successfully is a natural part of

growing up and human developmental trajectory. There are many types of lies and purpose for

lying for oneself or for others: white lies, lying to protect someone’s feelings, avoiding

punishment, and more. Lying is common in interpersonal communications. As children grow

older, children understand more about prosocial lie-telling. However, lying can become a

problem and has negative consequences if chronically or inappropriately used.

In order to successfully deceive another, the lie-teller needs to regulate verbal statements

and nonverbal behavior. Verbal statements refers to the content of the statements made during

or telling the truth.

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 3

in the room with a toy behind their back and told not to peek. When the experimenter comes

back, the children are asked if they peeked. In the study, one hundred and one three- to seven-

year old participants were told they were going to play a game that involved guessing names of

popular toys. Children were instructed to sit in a chair and listen to the audio clue associated with

a toy that was kept behind them three times. On the third presentation, the experimenter was

interrupted to answer a phone. Before the experimenter left, they said, "Don't turn round to peek

and look at the toy" and "remember, no peeking." Children were left alone for about thirty to

sixty seconds.

The results of the study matched the experimenter’s hypothesis. When asked, 64% of the

three-year-olds confessed to peeking whereas most of the four- to seven-year olds lied. Overall,

tellers even though both boys and girls lied equally. The research also found 38% of children

This section is the largest of full-length literature review article and is the actual

“review” portion of the literature review.

Section title

lie about their transgressions and are pretty good at nonverbal behaviors. However, many of

these children are poor at controlling verbal statements. In addition, children are extremely good

at manipulating nonverbal behaviors to deceive others, as adults and undergraduate coders were

unable to distinguish the liars and non-liars. The study concludes that children under the age of

eight have still yet to develop successful deception (Talwar & Lee, 2002). However, asking the

subject to lie complicates these studies. In the real world, the person interacting with the lie-

telling individual would not know ahead of time that they are potentially being lied to or misled.

The situation and conversation becomes artificial, differing from the natural everyday

interactions and contexts (Talwar & Lee, 2002).

Similarly to the previous study, Lewis, Stanger, and Sullivan (1989) examined whether

verbal responses. Smiling, gaze aversion, sober mouth, and relaxed-interest mouth were the

facial expressions and nonverbal behaviors (nervous touching, startled response, body inhibition)

that were coded.

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 5

the findings corroborated with Talwar and Lee (2002) in that three year olds were good at

masking nonverbal expressions, but made verbal transgressions. According to this study, three-

year-old children are capable of deception. However, there are some limitations with this study,

as there were thirty-three subjects, a small sample, that were middle- and upper-class Caucasians.

Having a small sample size and type makes it questionable if this could apply to the general

population. Although this study found boys were more likely to admit their transgression (which

contradicts Talwar & Lee, 2000), it is a small sample size and is insufficient at generalizing to

the public. In addition, this was done in a laboratory. Many three-year-olds do not interact in a

lab often. Also, the child's parent was in the room, and that could affect whether the child lies or

not as children might believe they would be punished or face consequences at home (Lewis et

transgression of breaking a puppet, acting distress, and asked their child to agree to not tell the

The use of topic sentences and connective phrases, as in this section, can improve

the readability of a review by better improving flow from one paragraph to the next.

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 6

effect. Also, according to the assessment, children's understanding of lie and truth-telling

increased with age. The study concluded that children are not as likely to tell lies for a stranger,

especially with potential consequences for the children. Children may be motivated to lie for a

parent under certain conditions. More children lied if they knew they would not be blamed,

suggesting children changed their lie and truth-telling behavior depending on the context.

However, it is important to note that most children rarely are asked by strangers to lie or testify

against strangers. Moreover, in the Parent Absent and Parent Present condition, only about half

the children reported that their parents broke the puppet (Talwar et al., 2004).

Hays and Carver’s study (2014) examined whether lying to children affects their

subsequent honesty. They had one hundred and eighty-six children between three to seven, split

younger children were more likely to peek at the toy, and children who were lied to were more

Overall, the B.S. degree research paper should have at least 6 pages of text. This

example has 7.

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 7

variables that causes school-aged children to lie. One reason may be the children know they are

in an experiment and believe they will never see the experimenter again, and feel confident to lie.

In addition, children need to peek at the toy before lying. The children who choose to not peek

may conceptualize and value honesty more than the group of children who choose to peek and

lie. Also, the experiment uses strangers – someone with no relationship to the children – to lie to

the children, which does not reflect reality. Children may react differently if it were their parent

who lied to them, as there may be positive or negative consequences for lying to parents (Hays &

Carver, 2014).

Sodian, Taylor, Harris, and Perner (1991) suggest that lies for personal gain and reward

emerge during preschool. In the study, forty-two children (divided into fourteen subjects of two-

tracks so the [experimenter 2] won't find the driver?" These questions and hints allowed the child

There should be evidence of critical thinking about the research. For example, on this

DEVELOPMENT OF DECEPTION IN CHILDREN 8

strategies. The results suggest that there is an age difference in understanding how to deceive

people, as two- and three-year-olds required more prompting to produce misleading gestures and

remarks. It also appears children are capable of learning deception strategies, even if they do not

fully understand the act of deceptions (Sodian et al., 1991). It is possible the researcher could

have been leading the children into making deceptive strategies (e.g. pointing at the tire truck

marks to the children) without the children understanding what they are doing is deceptive.

The development of deception is a very natural and normal process of growing up. From

the studies reviewed, children become better liars with age although some children as young as

two and three show some deceptive strategies without prompting. In addition, children may lie or