This study was funded by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee's General Research Fund (845211) awarded to the corresponding author and the Shenzhen University research grant (85302-000173) awarded to the first author. We thank Ms Esther Chan for the data collection and the children and families participated in our study.

All methods described here have been approved by The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of The Education University of Hong Kong. Obtain written informed consent from a parent or a guardian for each child.
1. Introduction and Warm-up
<ol>
	<li>Introduce the child and the parent to the developmental psychology laboratory. Ensure that the child does not find out the hidden camcorder for video-recording or the adjacent observation room behind the one-way mirror. Let the individual child sit...

<ol>
	<li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Social+and+cognitive+correlates+of+children's+lying+behaviour.">Social and cognitive correlates of children's lying behaviour.</a> Child Dev. 79 (4), 866-881 (2008).</li><li>Wilson, A. E., Smith, M. D., Ross, H. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+nature+and+effects+of+young+children's+lies.">The nature and effects of young children's lies.</a> Soc Dev. 12 (1), 21-45 (2003).</li><li>Bussey, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+categorization+and+evaluation+of+different+types+of+lies+and+truths.">Children's categorization and evaluation of different types of lies and truths.</a> Child Dev. 70 (6), 1338-1347 (1999).</li><li>Evans, A. D., Xu, F., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=When+all+signs+point+to+you:+lies+told+in+the+face+of+evidence.">When all signs point to you: lies told in the face of evidence.</a> Dev Psychol. 47 (1), 39-49 (2011).</li><li>Williams, S. M., Kirmayer, M., Simon, T., Talwar, V. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+antisocial+and+prosocial+lies+to+familiar+and+unfamiliar+adults.">Children's antisocial and prosocial lies to familiar and unfamiliar adults.</a> Infant Child Dev. 22 (4), 430-438 (2013).</li><li>Talwar, V., Crossman, A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=From+little+white+lies+to+filthy+liars:+The+evolution+of+honesty+and+deception+in+young+children.">From little white lies to filthy liars: The evolution of honesty and deception in young children.</a> Adv Child Dev Behav. 40, 139-179 (2011).</li><li>Piaget, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> The Moral Judgment of the Child. , (1965).</li><li>Lewis, M., Stanger, C., Sullivan, M. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Deception+in+3-year-olds.">Deception in 3-year-olds.</a> Dev Psychol. 25 (3), 439-443 (1989).</li><li>Polak, A., Harris, P. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Deception+by+young+children+following+noncompliance.">Deception by young children following noncompliance.</a> Dev Psychol. 35 (2), 561-568 (1999).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Emergence+of+white+lie-telling+in+children+between+3+and+7+years+of+age.">Emergence of white lie-telling in children between 3 and 7 years of age.</a> Merrill-Palmer Quart. 48 (2), 160-181 (2002).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Development+of+lying+to+conceal+a+transgression:+Children's+control+of+expressive+behaviour+during+verbal+deception.">Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children's control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception.</a> Int J Behav Dev. 26 (5), 436-444 (2002).</li><li>Feldman, R. S., Jenkins, L., Popoola, O. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Detection+of+deception+in+adults+and+children+via+facial+expressions.">Detection of deception in adults and children via facial expressions.</a> Child Dev. 50 (2), 350-355 (1979).</li><li>Newton, P., Reddy, V., Bull, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+everyday+deception+and+performance+on+false-belief+tasks.">Children's everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks.</a> Brit J Dev Psychol. 18 (2), 297-317 (2000).</li><li>Sears, R., Rau, L., Alpert, R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Identification and Child Rearing. , (1965).</li><li>Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., Lindsay, R. C. L. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Children's+conceptual+knowledge+of+lie-telling+and+its+relation+to+their+actual+behaviors:+Implications+for+court+competence+examination.">Children's conceptual knowledge of lie-telling and its relation to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence examination.</a> Law Human Behav. 26 (4), 395-415 (2002).</li><li>Talwar, V., Gordon, H. M., Lee, K. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Lying+in+the+elementary+school+years:+Verbal+deception+and+its+relation+to+second-order+belief+understanding.">Lying in the elementary school years: Verbal deception and its relation to second-order belief understanding.</a> Dev Psychol. 43 (3), 804-810 (2007).</li><li>Baird, J. A., Astington, J. W., Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., Bargh, J. A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+development+of+the+intention+concept:+From+the+observable+world+to+the+unobservable+mind.">The development of the intention concept: From the observable world to the unobservable mind.</a> The New Unconscious. , 256-276 (2005).</li><li>Wang, L., Zhu, L., Wang, Z. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Parental+mind-mindedness+but+not+false+belief+understanding+predicts+Hong+Kong+children's+lie-telling+behavior+in+a+temptation+resistance+task.">Parental mind-mindedness but not false belief understanding predicts Hong Kong children's lie-telling behavior in a temptation resistance task.</a> J Exp Child Psychol. 162, 89-100 (2017).</li><li>Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., Watson, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Meta-analysis+of+theory-of-mind+development:+The+truth+about+false+belief.">Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief.</a> Child Dev. 72 (3), 655-684 (2001).</li><li>Perner, J., Wimmer, H. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term="John+thinks+that+Mary+thinks+that..."+attribution+of+second-order+beliefs+by+5-to+10-year-old+children.">"John thinks that Mary thinks that..." attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year-old children.</a> J Exp Child Psychol. 39 (3), 437-471 (1985).</li></ol>

The authors have nothing to disclose.

The protocol detailed in this article allows researchers to investigate children&#39;s spontaneous lie-telling behaviors in an experimental setting. It provides the children an opportunity not only to tell primary lies about their misdeeds, but also to tell more sophisticated strategic lies when confronted with evidence to cover up their misdeeds.
Some of the considerations in adapting and implementing this protocol relate to the procedure and item selection. Researchers could choose to skip s...

The overall goal of this modified temptation resistance protocol is to elicit children&#39;s naturalistic lie-telling behaviors in a deliberately designed laboratory setting. Children&#39;s lie-telling behavior as an important aspect of their social development has been the focus of research interest for decades. Lie-telling is defined as the intentional delivery of a false statement by one person or group to another person or group1. Lying to conceal one&#39;s own misdeeds is the most common and the earliest form of deception exhibited by children2, although it is viewed very negatively by both children and adults3. This type of lie serves the interests of the tellers by protecting them from the consequences of their transgressions4, but it violates trust and breaks rules of communication by contravening the assumption of information equality5. Although often viewed as a type of antisocial behavior, lying is an important social skill6, and its emergence reflects children&#39;s flexibility in dealing with complex social situations to ensure their own preservation. Therefore, enlisting children&#39;s spontaneous lie-telling behavior in a laboratory setting not only enables studies to investigate the development of children&#39;s lie-telling as a social behavior itself in depth, but also allows investigations into the cognitive and social correlates of lie-telling behavior during childhood.
Though children&#39;s lie-telling behaviors have attracted research attention for a long time7, significant progress regarding spontaneous lie-telling was only made possible in recent decades with the development of innovative experimental procedures that create situations prompting children to lie spontaneously1,4,8,9,10,11. Earlier studies asked children to &#34;lie&#34; about certain facts12, which does not reflect the covert nature of lie-telling. Lie-telling is a deceptive behavior where the listener is not supposed to know that the liar is trying to mislead him or her; and the listener should not be able to detect the lies for them to be successful. Thus asking the children to &#34;lie&#34; about facts creates a counterfeit situation which is deviant from children&#39;s natural lie-telling scenarios. Similar challenge was also present in earlier observational studies of lie-telling13, which only captured the &#34;lies&#34; that were debunked by the observer.
Pioneered by Sears, Rau, and Alpert14, and subsequently by Lewis et al.8, the original temptation resistance paradigm provides method for ecologically valid explorations of children&#39;s naturalistic lie-telling behaviors. In this paradigm, children are given the opportunity to commit a transgression, for example, being left alone in room with an attractive toy and instructed not to peek or play with it. Due to the task&#39;s high demand on executive function, it is difficult for young children to resist the temptation to peek or play with the toy. As a result, when being asked whether they have peeked or played with the toy, children who have transgressed have an opportunity to lie spontaneously. Thus, the paradigm creates a situation to elicit children&#39;s spontaneous lies instead of instructing them to lie. More importantly, it mimics the nature of the most common children lies, which usually aim to conceal wrongdoings14. The paradigm was further modified by Polak and Harris9, in which they compared a permissive condition where children were allowed to play with the toy with a prohibitive condition where children were instructed not to touch the toy. The contrast between children&#39;s reactions in the two conditions highlighted the fact that children had the actual intention to lie rather than forgetting what they did.
The most cited version of the modified temptation resistance paradigm starts with a guessing game1,10,15. Children are instructed to guess the identity of a toy by the sound it makes while facing away from the toy. After they get the first two trials correctly, they would be left alone in the room before they have a chance to guess the final one. They are instructed not to turn around to peek. Unlike the first two trials where the sound the toys make match the identities of the toys, the final toy makes a sound that is unrelated to the identity, therefore, it is unlikely to guess what the toy is simply through listening. Upon the experimenter&#39;s return, the child is asked what the toy is, and whether he/she has peeked. Follow-up questions would explore children&#39;s strategic lie-telling to cover up their transgression1,9,10,16. Strategic lie-telling is when the lie-teller takes what the lie recipient knows into consideration and makes a false statement consistent with previous lies in order to cover up misdeeds4. In this case, those who falsely deny transgression would be asked to explain how they know the identity of the toy without peeking to test whether they could offer plausible explanations consistent with their initial false denial to avoid being exposed. Studies employing this version of the paradigm suggested that preschool children were hardly able to tell plausible strategic lies consistent with their false denial of transgression1,9.
In addition to enlisting spontaneous and genuine lie that resembles those in the natural social exchange, the temptation resistance paradigm was further modified to confront children with the physical evidence of transgression to enlist cover-ups of the initial lies. A further modified version of the temptation resistance paradigm was developed by Evans, Xu, and Lee4 to examine children&#39;s strategic lie-telling behaviors in the presence of physical evidence. Different from semantic leakage control, the ability to maintain consistency between lies, strategic lie-telling requires a lie-teller to maintain consistency between a lie and the evidence that is available to the lie recipient, in this case, not only the verbal evidence, but also the physical evidence. In this version, children are asked to guess the identity of a toy hidden in an upside down cup for three times. The experimenter would give clues to ensure all children &#34;guess&#34; correctly in the first two trials. Subsequently, the children are instructed not to peek under the cup in the final trial while the experimenter briefly leaves the room. If they do transgress and peek, the content hidden in the cup would spill and leave physical evidence that is hard for children to clean up. Children are then asked to explain the physical evidence if they deny peeking. The advantage of this version over previous protocols is to reduce cognitive demand imposed by tracking changes in other people&#39;s beliefs as a result of the lies4. Instead, the presence of physical evidence of transgression functions as a reminder of previous behavior and contrasts directly with children&#39;s lies. That way children only need to fake their intentions to make a plausible explanation: the spill was an accident instead of the result of an intentional act. This is especially significant given that the mental state of intention is understood earlier in development than other people&#39;s beliefs17. Empirical studies using this version of the protocol demonstrate that young children are able to tell strategic lies consistent with the physical evidence of their transgression by 4- or 5-years of age4.
This paper introduces the modified version of the temptation resistance paradigm used in a recently published study18 in details with refined procedures and materials. The protocol is suitable for eliciting 2- to 8-year-old children&#39;s spontaneous lie-telling behavior. The recommended age range is based on the emergence of lie telling behavior in young children and their mental state understanding development during this period. Children as young as 2-year-old lie, and the level of sophistication of the lies is arguably associated with children&#39;s false belief understanding1,16. Children pass the first order false belief task between 3- and 5-years of age19, and pass the second order false belief task around 7- and 8-years of age20. The introduced protocol could be potentially used in areas of developmental psychology research related to children&#39;s social understanding and social behavior.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:
 collapse;width:429pt" width="573">
	<tbody>
		<tr height="21" style="height:15.75pt">
			<td class="xl63" height="21" style="height:15.75pt;width:162pt" width="216">Camcorder</td>
			<td class="xl63" style="width:53pt" width="71">Sony</td>
			<td class="xl63" style="width:89pt" width="119">HDR-CX405</td>
			<td class="xl64" style="width:125pt" width="167">With tripod</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

the modified temptation resistance task: a paradigm to elicit children's strategic lie-telling

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children's strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of transgression was intended to be too tempting to resist, so that children's spontaneous lie-telling behavior in the presence of irreversible evidence due to the transgression could be observed. Conducted in a developmental psychology laboratory behind a one-way mirror and video recorded with a hidden camcorder, the protocol starts with a guessing game where the child is given three trials to guess the identities of hidden objects under an upside down cup. The experimenter gives hints in the first two trials to make sure the child "guess" them correctly. At the beginning of the final trial, the experimenter leaves the room briefly and asks the child not to peek under the cup. If the child could not resist the temptation and peeks, small particles previously filled in the cup would scatter on a grooved surface. Upon the experimenter's return, the child is asked if he/she has peeked. If he/she denies transgression contrary to the presence of the physical evidence, he/she is asked to explain why the particles are on the table. Three responses could be observed in the procedure, including the initial transgression, truth-telling or lie-telling behavior if the child peeked, and the strategic lie-telling behavior in the presence of the physical evidence.

The above method was implemented by Wang et al.18. Participants were 93 typically developing children from local kindergartens in Hong Kong (47 boys; age range 39.24 to 81.48 months, mean (M) age = 59.76 months, standard deviation (SD) = 9.84 months). The participants were divided into two groups using an age cutoff of 60 months. The younger group was composed of 46 children younger than 5 years (22 boys; M = 51.60 months, SD = 6.12 months), and the older ...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling at JoVE.com

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children&#039;s Strategic Lie-telling

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children&#39;s strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of transgression was intended to be too tempting to resist, so that children&#39;s spontaneous lie-telling behavior in the presence of irreversible evidence due to the transgression could be observed.

The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling

The protocol for the temptation resistance paradigm was designed to elicit 2- to 8-year-old children's strategic lie-telling behaviors. The reward of ...

The overall goal of this procedure is to elicit children's naturalistic lie-telling behaviors in a deliberately designed laboratory setting. This method can help answer key questions in the field of children's social development, such as the emergence of children's lie-telling behavior or the relationship between lie-telling and children's mental state understanding. The main advantage of this technique is that it allows ecologically valid explorations of children's naturalistic lie-telling behaviors.To begin, introduce the child and the parent to the laboratory environment and allow the child to sit at a child-sized table. After allowing the child to acclimate to the testing room, offer three attractive gifts for the child and instruct the child to select the most desirable one. Then inform the child that the selected gift is the prize for winning three rounds of the following guessing game.Instruct the parent to say goodbye to the child. Then allow the parent to join an assistant in the neighboring room to observe the testing session behind a one-way mirror. Prior to playing the guessing game, place two hidden objects in opaque upside-down cups on grooved plates.Then fill a third cup with some rice and position it upside-down on another grooved plate. Next, invite the child to play a guessing game. Present the first cup to the child and inform the child that there is an object hidden under the cup.Then provide clues to help the child guess the identity of the hidden object. When the child correctly identifies the first object, congratulate them and repeat the guessing game with the second hidden object. After the second round, present the child with the cup containing the hidden rice and the child's chosen prize.Then inform the child that they will only receive the prize if they correctly guess the identity of an object hidden under the cup. Have an assistant knock on the door at this exact moment. Before exiting the room, instruct the child not to lift the cup to peek at the hidden object.Stand behind the one-way mirror to observe the child's behavior. When the child lifts the cup to peak at the object, the rice will spill onto the grooved plate. Then return to the room one minute after the child started to peek and ask the child if they lifted the cup to peek at the object.When the child answers no, despite the physical evidence of the transgression, look at the spilled rice and ask yourself out loud, Why is this rice outside of the cup? Once more, ask the child if they lifted the cup to peek at the object and wait for them to respond. When the child continues to deny having lifted the cup to peek, ask the child how the rice spilled outside of the cup one last time and wait for the child to respond.The cup flew up in the sky. Then tell the child that it was just a game and it is normal for children to peek and say they didn't peek during the game because the prize is very tempting. Give the child the promised gift at the end of the testing session regardless of their responses during the guessing game.Then inform the parent that the guessing game protocol is specifically designed to elicit lying behavior in children. Finally, explain to the parent that peeking and lying behaviors reflect sophisticated cognitive and social development. In this protocol, participants ranging from three to six years old were tested with the guessing game and two trained coders examined their answers and explanations.The participants were divided into four groups depending upon their answers and explanations, strategic liars, non-strategic liars, truth tellers, and non-peekers. Approximately half of the children peeked under the cup in the experimenter's absence. On average, peekers initiated peeking behavior within 30 seconds of the experimenter's departure.The majority of the peekers lied about their transgression and older children were more likely to lie than younger children. Older children were also more likely than younger children to use strategic lies. While attempting this procedure, it is important to remember to play the guessing game and the lie-eliciting procedure naturally.Following this procedure, other measures, such as inhibitor-control or false-belief tasks can be performed in order to answer additional questions, like what abilities are related with children's deception. After its development, this technique paved the way for researchers in developmental psychology to explore children's lie-telling behaviors in social interaction.

the-modified-temptation-resistance-task-paradigm-to-elicit-children-s

Research

JoVE Journal

Behavior

8.3K Views.  Shenzhen University. The overall goal of this procedure is to elicit children's naturalistic lie-telling behaviors in a deliberately designed laboratory setting. This method can help answer key questions in the field of children's social development, such as the emergence of children's lie-telling behavior or the relationship between lie-telling and children's mental state understanding. The main advantage of this technique is that it allows ecologically valid explorations of children's naturalistic lie-telling b...