Don't be a rat: An investigation of the taboo against reporting other students for cheating.

This research examines barriers to reporting academic dishonesty in early adulthood (Study 1; N = 92) and adolescence (Study 2; N = 137). Participants were asked to describe a recent time they observed a peer cheating and to reflect on their decision about whether to report the cheating. They also responded to hypothetical scenarios about observing typical cheating actions, and the presence of social motives (e.g., whether people who report tend to gain reputations for being snitches) was manipulated in each scenario. Even though participants judged reporting to be the morally right thing to do, doing so was rare and approval for it was low, especially in adolescence. Participants also tended to say they would rather be friends with people who do not report cheaters than with those who do. Participants reasoned about a variety of social concerns to support their judgments about reporting (e.g., concern about their relationship with the cheater, concerns for others' welfare), and the manipulated social motives in the hypothetical scenarios significantly influenced judgments about reporting. These findings inform our understanding of the social dynamics that contribute to decisions about policing academic honesty.

How barriers become invisible: Children are less sensitive to constraints that are stable over time.

When making inferences about the mental lives of others (e.g., others' preferences), it is critical to consider the extent to which the choices we observe are constrained. Prior research on the development of this tendency indicates a contradictory pattern: Children show remarkable sensitivity to constraints in traditional experimental paradigms, yet often fail to consider real-world constraints and privilege inherent causes instead. We propose that one explanation for this discrepancy may be that real-world constraints are often stable over time and lose their salience. The present research tested whether children (N = 133, 5- to 12-year-old mostly US children; 55% female, 45% male) become less sensitive to an actor's constraints after first observing two constrained actors (Stable condition) versus after first observing two actors in contexts with greater choice (Not Stable condition). We crossed the stability of the constraint with the type of constraint: either the constraint was deterministic such that there was only one option available (No Other Option constraint) or, in line with many real-world constraints, the constraint was probabilistic such that there was another option, but it was difficult to access (Hard to Access constraint). Results indicated that children in the Stable condition became less sensitive to the probabilistic Hard to Access constraint across trials. Notably, we also found that children's sensitivity to constraints was enhanced in the Not Stable condition regardless of whether the constraint was probabilistic or deterministic. We discuss implications for children's sensitivity to real-world constraints. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: This research addresses the apparent contradiction that children are sensitive to constraints in experimental paradigms but are often insensitive to constraints in the real world. One explanation for this discrepancy is that constraints in the real world tend to be stable over time and may lose their salience. When probabilistic constraints (i.e., when a second option is available but hard to access) are stable, children become de-sensitized to constraints across trials. First observing contexts with greater choice increases children's sensitivity to both probabilistic and deterministic constraints.

Calculated Comparisons: Manufacturing Societal Causal Judgments by Implying Different Counterfactual Outcomes.

How do people come to opposite causal judgments about societal problems, such as whether a public health policy reduced COVID-19 cases? The current research tests an understudied cognitive mechanism in which people may agree about what actually happened (e.g., that a public health policy was implemented and COVID-19 cases declined), but can be made to disagree about the counterfactual, or what would have happened otherwise (e.g., whether COVID-19 cases would have declined naturally without intervention) via comparison cases. Across two preregistered studies (total N = 480), participants reasoned about the implementation of a public policy that was followed by an immediate decline in novel virus cases. Study 1 shows that people's judgments about the causal impact of the policy could be pushed in opposite directions by emphasizing comparison cases that imply different counterfactual outcomes. Study 2 finds that people recognize they can use such information to influence others. Specifically, in service of persuading others to support or reject a public health policy, people systematically showed comparison cases implying the counterfactual outcome that aligned with their position. These findings were robust across samples of U.S. college students and politically and socioeconomically diverse U.S. adults. Together, these studies suggest that implied counterfactuals are a powerful tool that individuals can use to manufacture others' causal judgments and warrant further investigation as a mechanism contributing to belief polarization.

Parenting by Lying.

Parenting by lying is a practice in which parents lie to their children to influence their emotions or behavior. Recently, researchers have tried to document the nature of this phenomenon and to understand its causes and consequences. The present research provides an overview of the research in the emerging field, describes some key theoretical and methodological challenges in studying this topic, and proposes a theoretical framework for understanding parenting by lying and for guiding future research to advance our knowledge about this understudied parenting practice.

Lying to recommend unqualified friends: Diverging implications for interpersonal and epistemic trust inferences.

When people are asked to recommend individuals they care about, they often grapple with conflicts regarding the level of honesty they should maintain when being truthful could potentially hinder those individuals' chances of receiving beneficial opportunities. In the current study, we examined how adolescents evaluate people based on how they respond to such dilemmas, with a focus on how it affects judgments of interpersonal and epistemic trustworthiness. We tested a sample of high school students in the southwestern United States (N = 78; Mage = 16.45 years), who were asked about a moral dilemma in which a story character needed to decide whether to recommend an unqualified friend. We experimentally manipulated whether the friend was very close to the standard (requiring a small exaggeration) or was far from the standard (requiring a large exaggeration) between participants. Across both exaggeration conditions, we observed a dissociation in judgments of epistemic and interpersonal trustworthiness: Lie-tellers were judged to be more interpersonally trustworthy than epistemically trustworthy, whereas truth-tellers were judged to be more epistemically trustworthy than interpersonally trustworthy. These results show that adolescents are capable of using information about an individual's lie-telling versus truth-telling decisions to make highly nuanced social inferences.

If They Won't Know, I Won't Wait: Anticipated Social Consequences Drive Children's Performance on Self-Control Tasks.

This research evaluated the hypothesis that the act of offering an incentive produces anticipated social benefits that are distinct from the benefits associated with the incentive itself. Across three preregistered studies, 3- to 5-year-old children in China (total N = 210) were given an opportunity to wait for an additional sticker (Studies 1 and 3) or an edible treat (Study 2). Rewards were dispensed via a timer-controlled box that allowed the experimenter's apparent ability to learn how long children waited to be manipulated experimentally. Children waited only about half as long when they believed the experimenter would not find out how long they waited. When children were offered three prizes for waiting, anticipated social benefits still drove behavior at least as much as the reward. The findings demonstrate that children as young as 3 years are sensitive to anticipated social rewards when responding to offers of incentives.

Children can represent complex social status hierarchies: Evidence from Indonesia.

Children's ethnicity-status associations are often studied in societies where one ethnic group possesses status across multiple dimensions, such as political influence and wealth. This study examined children's (6-12 years) and adults' representations of more complex hierarchies in Indonesia (N = 341; 38% Native Indonesian, 33% Chinese Indonesian, and 27% other ethnicities; 55% female, 36% male; 2021-2022), a society where ethnic groups hold distinct forms of status (on average, Native Indonesians have political influence; Chinese Indonesians have wealth). By 6.5 years, children associated Native Indonesians with political influence and Chinese Indonesians with wealth. Intersectional analyses indicated that ethnicity-status associations were stronger for male than female targets. Children of all ethnicities preferred Chinese Indonesians and preferences were predicted by wealth judgments.

Emphasizing others' persistence can promote unwarranted social inferences in children and adults.

People often hear stories about individuals who persist to overcome their constraints. While these stories can be motivating, emphasizing others' persistence may promote unwarranted judgments about constrained individuals who do not persist. Using a developmental social inference task (Study 1a: n = 124 U.S. children, 5-12 years of age; Study 1b: n = 135 and Study 2: n = 120 U.S. adults), the present research tested whether persistence stories lead people to infer that a constrained individual who does not persist, and instead accepts the lower-quality option that is available to them, prefers it over a higher-quality option that is out of reach. Study 1 found evidence for this effect in children (1a) and adults (1b). Even persistence stories about failed outcomes, which emphasize how difficult it would have been to get the higher-quality option, had this effect. Study 2 found that the effect generalized to adults' judgments about an individual facing a different type of constraint from those mentioned in the initial stories. Taken together, emphasizing others' persistence may encourage unwarranted judgments about individuals who are still constrained to lower-quality options. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Default settings affect children's decisions about whether to be honest.

Behavioral economics research has revealed that our decision-making can be biased by default settings. That is, all other things being equal, adults tend to choose default options even when the effort involved in choosing other options is minimal. Extensive evidence shows that default settings can systematically influence adult decisions in a wide variety of domains (e.g., pension choices, organ donation), but little is known about their developmental origin. Of interest in the present research is whether default settings can influence young children's decisions about whether to be honest. We investigated this question in two studies of 5- and 6-year-old Chinese children (total N = 120; 60 girls; Mage = 5.81, SDage = 0.14). Each study used a specially designed device that allowed children to play a guessing game in either a Cheating Default condition in which they would cheat by doing nothing or in an Honesty Default condition in which they would be honest by doing nothing. In each condition, they had the option of taking a trivially easy action to override the default (pushing a button in Study 1 or moving a screen in Study 2). In both studies, children decided to cheat significantly more often in the Cheating Default condition than in the Honesty Default condition. Additionally, overall cheating rates were significantly higher in Study 2 than in Study 1 (55% vs. 25%), which suggests that even though the default setting effect generalized across different actions, the specific action in question can also affect the cheating rate. Taken together, these results indicate that default setting effects that have been observed in adults have origins in childhood, and they point toward new ways to use nudges to promote positive social development and moral decision-making.

Cheating among elementary school children: A machine learning approach.

Academic cheating is common, but little is known about its early emergence. It was examined among Chinese second to sixth graders (N = 2094; 53% boys, collected between 2018 and 2019) using a machine learning approach. Overall, 25.74% reported having cheated, which was predicted by the best machine learning algorithm (Random Forest) at a mean accuracy of 81.43%. Cheating was most strongly predicted by children's beliefs about the acceptability of cheating and the observed prevalence and frequency of peer cheating at school. These findings provide important insights about the early development of academic cheating, and how to promote academic integrity and limit cheating before it becomes entrenched. The present research demonstrates that machine learning can be effectively used to analyze developmental data.

Academic cheating interferes with learning among middle school children.

There has been extensive research on the causes of academic cheating, but little is known about its consequences. The current research sought to fill this gap in the literature by examining how cheating by middle school children (total N = 198) affects their learning outcomes. In a naturalistic paradigm, children scored a math test they had taken previously, which gave them an opportunity to cheat by falsely scoring incorrect answers to be correct. Results from this phase showed that 54 % of the children cheated on at least one question. One week later, the children took the same test again, but this time without being given an opportunity to cheat. Among children who cheated, items they had answered incorrectly on the first round showed significantly less improvement on the second round if they had dishonestly scored them as correct rather than honestly scoring them as incorrect. This finding provides the first experimental evidence that academic cheating can interfere with children's learning.

The profit motive: Implications for children's reasoning about merit-based resource distribution.

How to distribute resources in a fair way is a fundamental source of conflict in human societies. A central dilemma that people begin to grapple with during childhood is the extent to which individuals should be rewarded based on merit at the expense of equality. The current study examined children's reasoning about this dilemma by testing whether they are sensitive to information about the motives of highly productive people when determining whether they should receive extra compensation. Across two studies, children (6- to 11-year-olds, total N = 143) judged high performers to be less deserving of extra resources when they were motivated by profit rather than being intrinsically motivated, and this pattern was more pronounced among the older children. The findings demonstrate that, with age, children increasingly consider motives when deciding whether productivity should be rewarded and that the tendency of adults to view profit motives as problematic has origins during childhood.

Thinking Structurally: A Cognitive Framework for Understanding How People Attribute Inequality to Structural Causes.

To make accurate causal inferences about social-group inequalities, people must consider structural causes. Structural causes are a distinct type of extrinsic cause-they are stable, interconnected societal forces that systematically advantage some social groups and disadvantage others. We propose a new cognitive framework to specify how people attribute inequality to structural causes. This framework is rooted in counterfactual theories of causal judgment and suggests that people will recognize structural factors as causal when they are perceived as "difference-making" for inequality above and beyond any intrinsic causes. Building on this foundation, our framework makes the following contributions. First, we propose specific types of evidence that support difference-making inferences about structural factors: within-group change (i.e., observing that disadvantaged groups' outcomes improve under better societal conditions) and well-matched between-group comparisons (i.e., observing that advantaged group members, who have similar baseline traits to the disadvantaged group, experience more favorable societal conditions and life outcomes). Second, we consider contextual, cognitive, and motivational barriers that may complicate the availability and acceptance of this evidence. We conclude by exploring how the framework might be applied in future research examining people's causal inferences about inequality.

Individuating multiple (not one) persons reduces implicit racial bias.

Individuation training that helps humans see multiple other-race targets as distinct rather than as interchangeable can reduce children's implicit racial bias in the form of more negative other-race associations than own-race associations. However, little is known about which aspects of these interventions are critical for their effectiveness. The present research examines whether children need to learn to differentiate among multiple other-race individuals for these interventions to reduce their level of implicit racial bias, or whether differentiating a single other-race individual is sufficient. We addressed this question among 4-to-6-year-old Chinese children (N = 66, 31 girls) who engaged in coordinated movement with Black instructors for 2 min. There were two between-subject conditions: in a differentiation condition, there were four different Black instructors, and children had to learn to tell them apart, and in a no-differentiation condition, there was only one Black instructor. Implicit bias was measured using the IRBT, an implicit association test that was developed based on the IAT but is appropriate for young children. We found a reduction in implicit bias against Black people after this interaction in the differentiation condition, but not in the no-differentiation condition. These findings suggest that learning to differentiate among multiple other-race individuals plays a critical role in reducing children's implicit racial bias.

Overheard evaluative comments: Implications for beliefs about effort and ability.

This research examined the effects of overhearing an adult praise an unseen child for not needing to work hard on an academic task. Five-year-old Han Chinese children (total N = 270 across three studies; 135 boys, collected 2020-2021) who heard this low effort praise tended to devalue effort relative to a baseline condition in which the overheard conversation lacked evaluative content. In Study 3, low effort praise increased children's endorsement of essentialist beliefs about ability and their interest in becoming the kind of person who does not need to work hard to succeed. The findings show that overhearing evaluative comments about other people, a pervasive feature of daily life, can have a systematic effect on young children's beliefs about achievement.

Dataset of the effect of difficulty messaging on academic cheating in middle school Chinese children.

The present dataset was reported in a paper entitled "Effects of test difficulty messaging on academic cheating among middle school children" [1]. It reports the findings of an experimental study that used a naturalistic math test-taking paradigm to assess children's academic cheating behavior under different test difficulty messaging conditions. The participants were Grade 8 middle school children (N = 201). The primary dependent measures were whether each participant spontaneously decided to cheat (presence of cheating), and among participants who cheated, the specific number of test items on which they cheated (extent of cheating). We used logistic regression, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation to assess whether various predictor variables (e.g., conditions) predicted the presence of cheating or the extent of cheating. This dataset should be of interest to researchers who are interested in the development of moral behavior in children generally, and academic dishonesty in particular.

Messaging about descriptive and injunctive norms can promote honesty in young children.

This research examined the effectiveness of using norms to promote honesty. Participants were Han Chinese children (N = 568, 50.4% male, 3.24 to 6.00 years, collected 2020-2022). Relative to children in a control condition, children in Study 1 were more likely to confess to having cheated in a game after being presented with a descriptive norm indicating that confessions are typical, or an injunctive norm indicating that most other children approve of confessing. Study 2 showed that this finding was not due to a methodological artifact, and Study 3 replicated the effect in a context in which the norm information was conveyed by someone other than the experimenter. The findings suggest that messages about social norms can influence children's honesty.

Effects of test difficulty messaging on academic cheating among middle school children.

Academic cheating is a serious worldwide problem that begins during childhood. However, to date there has been little research on academic cheating with children before high school age. The current study used a naturalistic experimental paradigm to evaluate the possibility that systematically manipulating messages about the difficulty of a test can affect whether middle school children (N = 201) would cheat by reporting a falsely inflated test score. We found that test difficulty messaging significantly affected children's cheating behavior. Specifically, telling children that a test was either easy or hard produced higher rates of cheating than telling them that the difficulty level was on par with their current skills. In addition, among the children who chose to cheat, telling them that the test was easy led to a greater degree of cheating. These findings are consistent with theories of academic cheating that point to the importance of approach and avoidance motives in achievement motivation. The findings also suggest that simple messaging can have a significant impact on children's moral behavior and that seemingly innocuous messages such as describing the difficulty of a test can influence children's decisions about whether and how much to cheat.

Training young children in strategic deception promotes epistemic vigilance.

Learning from others allows young children to acquire vast amounts of information quickly, but doing so effectively also requires epistemic vigilance. Although preschool-age children have some capacity to engage in such processes, they often have trouble resisting information from misleading informants. The present research takes a novel strategic deception training approach to addressing this limitation. The approach is grounded in theoretical work on children's recognition of self-other equivalences (Meltzoff, 2007) and in the default tendency to view communication as helpful (Mascaro et al., 2017). Eighty 3-year-old Singaporean children (Mage = 39.36 months, 37 girls, 90.0% Chinese) were randomly assigned to either an experimental condition, in which they were trained on strategic deception, or to a conservation training control condition. Findings showed that the strategic deception training was effective in promoting epistemic vigilance on a semantic task that involved object naming and no pointing, although the effect did not extend to performance on an episodic task that involved pointing to object locations. These findings provide the first evidence of a causal link between young children's reasoning about how to deceive others and their resistance to being misled by others. In doing so, they shed light on the mechanisms that come into play when children learn epistemic vigilance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The developmental origins of a default moral response: A shift from honesty to dishonesty.

People are sometimes tempted to lie for their own benefit if it would not harm others. For adults, dishonesty is the default response in these circumstances. The developmental origins of this phenomenon were investigated between 2019 and 2021 among 6- to 11-year-old Han Chinese children from China (N = 548, 49% female). Children had an opportunity to win prizes in a behavioral economics game (Experiment 1) or a temptation resistance game adapted from developmental psychology (Experiment 2). In each experiment, the youngest children showed a default tendency of honesty and there was an overall age-related shift toward a default tendency of dishonesty. These findings provide direct evidence of developmental change in the automatic and controlled processes that underlie moral behavior.