The Truth About Lies;
Judgment About Lying in
Adolescents.
Valerie Hernandez
Southwestern Adventist University
In Partial Fulfillment of PSYC 460
Chapter 1
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine adolescents’
judgments about lying to avoid directives from parents or
friends regarding moral, personal, and prudential areas
(Perkins and Turiel, 2007). Humans are taught to lie at
times to not hurt other people’s feelings or to save
someone from pain or discomfort. In this study, I will
establish how many adolescents believe it is wrong to lie
when “covering up” or in general.
Theoretical Framework
The construct of the moral domain, personal, and
prudential domains, is
based on a theoretical framework
that accounts for the application of moral judgments in
various cultural contexts; for extensive discussions see
(Turiel, 2002; Turiel & Wainryb, 1994, 2000). In their
research on nondisclosure, Smetana et al. (2006) found that
adolescents thought they were less obligated to tell
parents about personal activities than moral or prudential
activities. They also found that older adolescents were
more likely than younger ones to accept the legitimacy of
nondisclosure and to reject the legitimacy of parental
restrictions over personal issues (see also Finkenaurer et
al., 2002; Smetana, 2002).
The research on nondisclosure
has not directly examined adolescents’ judgments about the
types of deception defined by Bok (1978/1999, p. 13) as
‘‘messages meant to mislead . . . any intentional message
which is stated.’’ This theoretical framework will serve as
a basis for conducting research throughout this study.
Research Questions and Hypothesis
These are questions that will be asked to the sample
participants, “Would it be acceptable for the adolescent to
lie about the action?; Was it acceptable for the parents or
friends to direct the adolescent’s activities? Is lying
alright or not alright?
I have hypothesized that
adolescents would consider lying to “cover up” a misdeed
and lying ‘‘in general’’ as wrong, and that adolescents
value honesty, but sometimes subordinate it to other goals.
(Perkins and Turiel, 2007).
Limitations
This study will rely on sample participants to be
straight forward with their answers and as honest as
possible. The sampling process may be difficult to attain
100% accuracy, as one could imagine.
But the choice of
conducting this study on adolescents regarding relation to
peers is due to the closer relationship they entail with
each other.
Generally, at that age of adolescence, the
parent-adolescent relationship weakens which gives them
more chance of deception due to fear of consequences.
Thus, a large volunteer sample population could result in
more accurate responses.
Definition of Terms
Independent variables - domain, age, and
relationship.
Dependent variable – Justification.
Directives – an authoritative instruction or direction;
specific order. This term will be used as a key word
throughout the study. Definitions of the moral, personal,
and prudential domains have been provided in many places;
for summaries, see Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1988; Turiel,
1983, 1998.
Overview of Following Chapters
In the next two chapters I will be discussing the
literature used to complete the study.
Along with the
literature review (chapter 2), the methodology (chapter 3)
will be explained as thoroughly as possible to show how the
study will be done.
parts:
The methodology consists of four
the research design and sampling combined, the data
collection method, and the data analysis.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The sources I used for this literature review were
very descriptive and will help one have a better
understanding of the study.
One hundred and twenty-eight
adolescents (12.1 – 17.3 years) were presented with
situations in which an adolescent avoids a directive
through deception. The majority of adolescents judged some
acts as acceptable, including deception regarding parental
directives to engage in moral violations and to restrict
personal activities. Other acts of deception were judged as
unacceptable, including deception of parents regarding
prudential acts, as well as deception of friends in each
area. Here is where the research can be analyzed and help
the study by recording how the adolescents reacted.
By
reading this in the article one can note for future studies
how effective their study was and base it on my theoretical
framework.
In addition, lying to conceal a misdeed was negatively
evaluated. Most adolescents thought that directives from
parents and friends to engage in moral violations or to
restrict personal acts were not legitimate, whereas
parental directives concerning prudential acts were seen as
legitimate (Perkins & Turiel, 2007).
We notice here the
difference between directives from parents and directives
from friends.
Justifications for lying in various circumstances have
been debated by philosophers. Some of the debates revolve
around Kant’s absolutist position that the duty of
truthfulness is unconditional, and that all lies are
morally prohibited (Bok, 1978/1999).
As children,
Many have disagreed with Kant because his position
does not leave room for exceptions, such as when telling
the truth is in conflict with avoiding harm to persons or
preventing injustices.
A hypothetical example used to illustrate that
deception is sometimes justified is when a murderer asks
where his intended victim has gone. In a real-life context,
people often lied in order to save others from Nazi
concentration camps during World War II. Research in the
medical field shows that deception is judged as justified
in some contexts involving the prevention of harm (Freeman,
Rathore, Weinfurt, Schulman, & Sulmasy, 1999). In response
to hypothetical situations, a majority of physicians judged
deception of an insurance company to be acceptable when it
is the only means of preventing harm to patients (to obtain
treatment otherwise unavailable).
Psychological research too, demonstrates that
children, adolescents, and adults do not evaluate all lies
in the same way. It has been found that children and adults
rate (Peterson, Peterson, & Seeto, 1983) or judge (Bussey,
1999) selfishly motivated lies as worse than so-called
‘‘white lies’’ intended to spare the feelings of others and
lies to benefit another or prevent harm. It has also been
found that Chinese children (more so than Canadians)
negatively rated telling the truth about carrying out a
good deed (Lee, Cameron, Xu, Fu, & Board, 1997). Similarly,
college students (Lindskold & Walters, 1983) rate lies for
personal gain as wrong and lies to prevent harm or
embarrassment to others as acceptable.
These and other studies (Kahn & Turiel, 1988; Nucci,
1981) show that children and adolescents judge acts of
deception to be wrong in certain circumstances, but
acceptable when telling the truth would result in hurting
the feelings of others. There is also research showing that
college students tell lies to both strangers and those
close to them, including parents (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998.)
The finding that young people deceive their parents should
not be surprising. It is generally acknowledged that
particularly during adolescence conflicts occur with
parents and that adolescents deceive parents about a number
of matters they consider within their personal
jurisdiction.
Chapter 3
Research Design & Sampling
The methodology for this study is adopted in part by a
study done by Perkins and Turiel (2007).
The participants
in this study consisted of 100 adolescents, (50 males, 50
females), from public schools in Dallas.
The sample
students were chosen by recruitment going to different
classes at the middle school and asking the students if
they would like to be a part of the study.
Most of the
students were interested with a result of 89% volunteer
rate.
The students needed parental consent to participate
in this study, so permission slips were given to each
volunteer student.
age.
Age group ranged from 11-14 years of
Race and ethnicity was diverse and varied from 40%
Whites, 30% Hispanics, 20% Blacks and 10% Asians.
Judgments about deception in different contexts were
assessed through an interview that included hypothetical
situations in which adolescents and parents or adolescents
and friends disagreed over two moral, two personal, and two
prudential activities.
The classifications were based on
criteria used in a large body of previous research (Nucci,
2001; Smetana, 2002; Turiel, 1983, 1998).
Data Collection Method
In order to provide participants with instances of
deception that would be treated as meaningful, the stories
described an adolescent who defies the directive and lies
about it.
Participants’ judgments concerning two questions
were assessed. First, would it be acceptable for the
adolescent to lie about the action? Second, was it
acceptable for the parents or friends to direct the
adolescent’s activities? Evaluations of lying for personal
gain were also assessed by presenting a story that depicted
an adolescent who deceives parents or friends to cover up a
misdeed.
They were also presented with the general
question, ‘‘Is lying alright or not alright?’’
In each story, the adolescent wants to engage in an
activity, the parents/friends object to the activity, and
the protagonist continues to engage in the activity and
lies about what he or she is doing. The stories classified
as moral involved fairness (parents/friends object to an
adolescent wanting to befriend someone of another race) and
harm (parents/friends want the adolescent to fight with
another student who is teasing him/her). The stories
classified as personal involved choices of relationships
(parents/friends object to the adolescent dating someone
they do not like) and leisure time (the adolescent wants to
join a club and the parents/friends think it is a waste of
time). The stories classified as prudential involved
potential harm to the self-regarding academic welfare
(parents/friends object to an adolescent’s choice not to
finish her homework) and physical welfare (parents/friends
object to the adolescent’s choice to ride a motorcycle).
One additional story, presented after the other stories,
depicted an adolescent who lies to parents or friends to
cover up a misdeed: in anger the adolescent breaks the
parents’ or friends’ cellular phone and tells her
parents/friends she does not know who did it (because of
time constraints, 8 participants were not given this
story).
This story (in the moral domain) was designed to
present a situation about lying that might not be perceived
as in conflict with other goals in the domains of personal
jurisdiction or prudence.
At the end of the interview,
participants were posed with the following question: ‘‘In
general, do you think lying is alright or not alright?’’
All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed.
The
order of the presentation of the initial six stories was
counterbalanced. Each participant was presented with either
all seven stories with the parent – adolescent relationship
or all seven stories with friendships.
In three stories,
the protagonist is female and in three the protagonist is
male. In the story about covering up a misdeed, the
protagonist is female.
Based on previous research
(KeltikangasJarvinen & Lindeman, 1997), the gender of the
protagonist was not expected to have an impact on judgments
about lying.
The stories and questions were aimed at
examining evaluations and judgments about lying in contexts
where adolescents defy directives from parents or friends.
Therefore, the questions focused on lying (rather than
defiance or noncompliance) and the legitimacy of the
directives.
Participants were asked the following
questions regarding the acts of deception: Is it all right
or not all right for x (the adolescent) to do the action in
secret and not tell his/her parents/friends? In each story,
this question directly followed the depiction of the
adolescent who deliberately lied about his or her
activities.
Almost all participants’ responses indicated
that they understood the question to bear on continuing the
activity and lying about it.
A few stated that
nondisclosure without lying would be acceptable; they were
then asked to evaluate an adolescent who lies about the
act.
Justifications were elicited by asking, why or why
not? In order to ascertain how participants viewed the
legitimacy of directives, they were asked: Is it all right
or not all right that the parents/friends expect him to do
(not to do) this? Why or Why not? (Perkins and Turiel,
2007).
This data collection method was chosen because it
has proven to work before therefore not needing to conduct
a pilot study.
Proposed Data Analysis
After the study is conducted, responses will be
analyzed by means of a log-linear approach in which models
are generated that predict the response on a specified
dependent variable as a function of various combinations of
the specified independent variables.
References
Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private
life. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work
published in 1978)
Bussey, K. (1999). Children’s categorization and evaluation
of different types of lies and truths. Child
Development, 70, 1338 – 1347
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W.
(2002).Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages and
disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123 – 136.
Freeman, V. G., Rathore, S. S., Weinfurt, K. P., Schulman,
K.A., & Sulmasy, D. P. (1999). Lying for patients:
Physician deception of third party payers. The
Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 2263 – 2270.
Kahn, P. H., & Turiel, E. (1988). Children’s conceptions of
trust in the context of social expectations. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 34, 403 – 419.
Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L., & Lindeman, M. (1997). Evaluation
of theft, lying and fighting in adolescence. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 467 – 481.
Lee, K., Cameron, C. A., Xu, F., Fu, G., & Board, J.
(1997). Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of
lying and truth telling: Similarities and differences
in the context of pro- and antisocial behaviors. Child
Development, 68, 924 – 934.
Lindskold, S., & Walters, P. S. (1983). Categories for the
acceptability of lies. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 120, 129 – 136.
Nucci, L. P. (1981). Conceptions of personal issues: A
domain distinct from moral or societal concepts. Child
Development, 52, 114 – 121.
Perkins, S. A., & Turiel, E. (2007).
To lie or not to lie:
To whom and under what circumstances.
Child
Development. 78(2), 609-621. DOI:10.1111/j.14678624.2007.01017.x
Peterson, C. C., Peterson, J. L., & Seeto, D. (1983).
Developmental changes in ideas about lying. Child
Development, 54, 1529 – 1535.
Smetana, J. G. (2002). Culture, autonomy, and personal
jurisdiction in adolescent-parent relationships. In H.
W. Reese & R. Kail (Eds.), Advances in child
development and behavior (Vol. 29, pp. 51 – 87). New
York: Academic Press.
Turiel,E.(1983). The development of social knowledge:
Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Turiel,E.(1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed., Vol. 3,
N. Eisenberg, (Ed.), Social, emotional, and
personality development, pp. 863 – 932). New York:
Wiley.
Turiel, E., & Wainryb, C. (1998). Concepts of freedoms and
rights in a traditional hierarchically organized
society. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.,
16, 375 – 395.
Turiel, E., & Wainryb, C. (2000). Social life in cultures:
Judgments, conflicts, and subversion. Child
Development, 71, 250 – 256.