The influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Honesty in School-Aged Children

The influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Honesty in School-Aged Children | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Honesty in School-Aged Children Xue Liu, Guotian Cai, Mo Zheng, Xintai Hu, Liyang Sai, Jinliang Qin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective This study aimed to examine whether providing school-aged children with social norm information promotes honest behavior. Methods Children first completed a “spin task” in which they could lie about their outcomes to obtain material rewards. Next, participants were exposed to either positive descriptive norm information (indicating that most peers report honestly) or injunctive norm information (indicating that most peers believe one should report honestly). Afterwards, they completed the spin task again to assess changes in lying behavior. A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of social norm type on pre- and post-test lying rates as a measure of dishonest behavior. Results Study 1 showed that 8‑year‑old children in both the positive descriptive and injunctive norm conditions lied at similar levels across pre‑ and post‑tests, whereas those in the control condition lied significantly more in the post‑test than in the pre-test. This suggests that social norm information prevented children from increasing their dishonest behavior. Study 2 found that exposure to a negative descriptive norm (indicating that most peers lie) showed lying rates similar to those in the positive descriptive norm condition, and both groups lied less than children in the control condition. This suggests that the effect of descriptive norm maybe driven by children’s concerns to be caught. Study 3 replicated the pattern from Study 1 among 10‑year‑old children, revealing no significant age differences in the effectiveness of norm information. Conclusion These findings suggest that exposure to peer truth‑telling norms can prevent school‑aged children from increasing dishonest behavior, thereby offering valuable insights into strategies for promoting honesty in children. honesty children social norms descriptive norms injunctive norms Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Honesty is essential for establishing trust in relationships and is a fundamental virtue that holds significant importance in both personal and societal contexts. Despite its cross-cultural primacy, developmental studies reveal that children routinely engage in dishonest behavior even when recognizing honesty as a moral imperative (Heyman et al., 2020 ). Building on social norm theory emphasizing that people’s behavior is influenced by what other people do or what other people approve of (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990 , 1991), the present study investigates whether exposure to peer truth-telling (a descriptive norm) and peer approval of truth-telling (an injunctive norm) can counteract self-serving motives to promote honesty in school-age children. Social norms are rules and standards understood by group members that guide behavior without the force of laws (Cialdini & Trost, 1998 ). Cialdini and his colleagues distinguish between two types of social norms: descriptive norms, which convey information about what people typically do, and injunctive norms, which indicate what people ought to do or what is socially approved (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990 , 1991). Both descriptive and injunctive norms have been found to influence a wide range of social behaviors, such as promoting pro-environmental actions (Helferich et al., 2023 ; Ren et al., 2024 ), increasing tax compliance (Bobek et al., 2013 ; Jimenez & Iyer, 2016 ), and enhancing generosity (Raihani & McAuliffe, 2014 ; Gugenishvili & Colliander, 2023 ). Recent empirical studies have begun to investigate the effect of social norms on dishonest behavior in adults but have yielded mixed evidence. Dimant et al. ( 2020 ) employed a private die-rolling paradigm where participants, incentivized monetarily to report dishonestly, received either descriptive norms (“most participants report honestly”) or injunctive norms (“most believe one should report honestly”). They found that neither norm type increased honest behavior (Dimant et al., 2020 ). In contrast, Ayal et al. ( 2021 ) demonstrated that descriptive norms (“most individuals are honest”) eliminated lying in a comparable task. Further, Lois and Wessa ( 2021 ) found that negative descriptive norms (“most peer cheating”) increased major dishonesty, while injunctive norms only marginally reduced minor dishonesty. Adding nuance, Mitra and Shahriar ( 2020 ) revealed that the effect of descriptive norms depends on the benefit level: norms promoting dishonesty increased lying when benefits were low, whereas honesty norms failed to reduce lying when benefits were high. Collectively, these findings indicate that normative influences on dishonesty are moderated by context, norm valence, and cost-benefit calculus. Despite this extensive adult literature, the impact of social norms on children’s dishonest behavior remains largely unexplored. This gap is particularly salient given that children begin lying in early childhood (Evans & Lee, 2013 ). Although developmental studies have identified effective honesty-promotion strategies such as, making children promise to tell the truth (Talwar et al., 2002 , 2004 ), telling children moral stories (Lee et al., 2014 ; Talwar et al., 2016 , 2018 ), increasing children’s self-awareness by putting a mirror in front of them (Bender et al., 2018 ; Ding et al., 2019 ; Sai et al., 2024 ), only one study has directly examined the effect of social norms. Liu et al. ( 2022 ) used a temptation resistance paradigm where 3- to 6-year-olds were instructed not to peek at a toy in the experimenter’s absence. After most children peeked, those exposed to either descriptive norms (“most children who peeked confess”) or injunctive norms (“most approve of confessing”) were significantly more likely to confess—with comparable effects between norm types. This provides initial evidence that both norms can promote honesty in young children. Whether such effects extend to school-aged children is unknown, despite evidence that norms influence other behaviors in this group. McAuliffe et al. ( 2017 ) found that descriptive and injunctive norms similarly increased generosity among 4- to 9-year-olds. Conversely, House and Tomasello ( 2018 ) reported that injunctive norms exerted stronger effects than descriptive norms on generosity in 6- to 11-year-olds. Research has also examined the effect of social norms on children’s dietary behavior. For example, Hang et al. ( 2020 ) observed that descriptive norms (“most children eat fruits/vegetables”) increased consumption in 7- to 13-year-olds, whereas injunctive norms (“most believe one should eat them”) had no effect. Sharps and Robinson ( 2016 ), however, found null effects of descriptive norms on food choices in 6- to 11-year-olds. Thus, while norms modulate some behaviors in school-aged children, their efficacy and relative potency vary across domains which underscores the need to examine their role in dishonesty specifically. The present study Taken together, this study employed a spin task paradigm (Sai et al., 2022 ) to systematically investigate the effects of descriptive and injunctive norms on honesty among 8- to 10-year-olds. In this task, children spun a wheel and reported whether the outcome matched a predetermined “lucky number”. They received a material reward for each reported match, providing an opportunity to misreport outcomes for personal gain. This paradigm was selected because it assesses reward motivated lying in children, aligning with the type of dishonesty commonly examined in adult samples (Dimant et al., 2020 ; Mitra & Shahriar, 2020 ). There are three hypotheses: First, extending Liu et al.’s ( 2022 ) finding that both norms increase truth-telling in preschoolers, we hypothesize that exposure to descriptive norms (“most children are honest”) or injunctive norms (“most believe one should be honest”) will significantly reduce lying rates compared to a no-norm control condition. Second, we propose no hypothesis about which norms is more effective since controversial findings in prosocial behavior research (McAuliffe et al., 2017 ; House & Tomasello, 2018 ), Third, based on established evidence that norm internalization progresses with age during middle childhood (Turiel, 2002 ), we predict that 10-year-olds will show significantly stronger responses to both social norms than 8-year-olds. This age effect stems from children’s cumulative socialization experiences, which enhance their understanding and adoption of societal standards (Smetana, 2006 ). Study 1 Method Participants A total of 96 8-year-olds were recruited from one elementary school in an urban city in eastern China. The experimental language and the routine language of the school environment were Mandarin Chinese. Participants were randomly assigned to the descriptive norm condition (32 children, 15 boys; M age = 8.33 years, SD age = 0.20), the injunctive norm condition (32 children, 16 boys; M age = 8.42 years, SD age = 0.18) or the control condition (32 children, 16 boys; M age = 8.37 years, SD age = 0.17). A priori power analysis was conducted in R 4.5.0 with the pwr 1.3-0 package (Champely, 2020 ) to detect a medium effect size (Cohen’s f = 0.25; Cohen, 2013 ) with 0.9 Power (1- β ) at α = 0.05. This indicated a required sample size of 81 children (27 children for each condition) to detect a significant interaction effect in a two-way mixed ANOVA. Informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians, and children also provided verbal consent before participating. All the studies were approved by the university ethics review board. Procedure Children were tested individually in a quiet room at their school by a male experimenter. The session began with the experimenter explaining to the child that they would play a “spin game”. Each child was instructed to think of a lucky number ranging from 1 to 6 and was informed that spinning this number would yield a prize. To control for individual differences in tendency to lie, a 3 condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm)*2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed design was used. Children were informed that there would be two rounds in the game, with eight trials in each round. In each trial, children first spun the spinner and then reported whether the outcome matched their lucky numbers. If the numbers matched, participants marked a check (√) on a sheet. After completing the first round, the children were given a break before proceeding to the second round. During the break, the experimenter provided children with the social norm information. In the control condition, children were told that other participants had played the game and that most of them thought it was a fun activity. In the descriptive norm condition, children were informed that most of other participants honestly reported whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers. In the injunctive norm condition, children were told that other participants believed that they should honestly report whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers. After the social norm information was presented, the second round began (see Fig. 1 ). Before the formal experiment, children practiced with two trials to ensure they understood the game. During the formal experiment, the experimenter had an excuse to leave the room. Unbeknownst to the participants, a hidden camera was placed in the room to monitor the spinning. If children reported that their outcome matched their lucky number while they did not actually spin that number, it was counted as lying. After the experiment, the experimenter reviewed the video to determine whether the children had lied. The lying rates in the pre- and post-test were calculated as follows: lying frequency divided by the total number of test trials excluding matching trials (lying rate = lying frequency / (8 - matching trials)). Results Overall, 74.0% ( N = 71) of children lied at least once across the entire task (percentage pre = 64.6%, N pre = 62; percentage post = 69.8%, N post = 67). Specifically, 71.9% ( N = 23) of children in the descriptive norm condition (percentage pre = 71.9%, N pre = 23; percentage post = 65.6%, N post = 21), 71.9% ( N = 23) of children in the injunctive norm condition (percentage pre = 65.6%, N pre = 21; percentage post = 65.6%, N post = 21), and 78.1% ( N = 25) of children in the control condition (percentage pre = 56.3%, N pre = 18; percentage post = 78.1%, N post = 25) lied at least once across the entire task. Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig. 2 (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the three groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 3 condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, F (2, 93) = 14.37, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.24. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig. 2 (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the descriptive norm (Mean post = 0.25, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.29, SE pre = 0.04; p = 0.149) and injunctive norm (Mean post = 0.21, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.23, SE pre = 0.04; p = 0.226) conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean post = 0.27, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.15, SE pre = 0.04; p < 0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior but rather prevented its escalation. Given the significant difference in pre-test lying rates between the control and descriptive norm conditions ( p = 0.029; see supplementary materials), a one-way ANCOVA was performed. This analysis used condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable, and pre-test lying rate as a covariate, thereby enhancing the reliability of the initial finding. After controlling for the lying rate in pre-test, results showed a significant main effect of condition ( F (2, 92) = 10.82, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.19). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig. 2 (c)) revealed that children in both the descriptive norm (Mean = 0.20, SE = 0.02; p = 0.001) and injunctive norm conditions (Mean = 0.20, SE = 0.02; p < 0.001) exhibited lower post-test lying rates relative to that in the control condition (Mean = 0.33, SE = 0.02), with no significant difference between the descriptive norm and the injunctive norm conditions ( p = 1.000). Discussion These results indicate that providing eight-year-old children with either descriptive or injunctive norm information did not reduce lying for personal gain, but rather prevented an increase in dishonest behavior over time. In contrast, children in the control condition showed a significant rise in lying behavior from the pre-test to the post-test. This increase may occur because, after repeated exposure to the same task, children become more capable of justifying their dishonest behavior (Shalvi et al., 2015 ; Sai et al., 2025 ) or realize that lying carries no negative consequences (Dai et al., 2026 ). By contrast, exposure to social norms information appeared to inhibit this escalation of dishonesty. Being reminded that most peers tell the truth or believe that one should report honestly may have made children more aware of social expectations surrounding honesty (House, 2018 ). Under such mixed motivational pressures—balancing personal gain against the desire to conform to peer norms—children chose not to increase their dishonest behavior. Thus, social norms information may serve as a stabilizing factor that maintains honesty levels, even if it does not directly reduce lying. Study 2 Study 1 demonstrated that descriptive norms can prevent an increase in lying behavior. However, previous research suggests that the effect of descriptive norms may arise because the information provided (i.e., that most children honestly reported their outcomes) leads children to suspect that the experimenter has a way to detect their lies (Liu et al., 2022 ). If this is the case, the effect observed may not be a true reflection of descriptive norms but rather a result of children’s concerns about the consequences of being caught. To address this issue, Study 2 introduced a negative descriptive norm condition, where children were informed that most children falsely reported their outcomes in many trials. If the effect is indeed due to descriptive norms, we would expect lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition to be higher in the post-test than in the pre-test. Conversely, if the concern about being caught is the driving factor, we would expect the lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition to be similar to those in the positive descriptive norm condition. Method Participants A total of 32 8-year-olds (16 boys; M age = 8.42 years, SD age = 0.21) were recruited from the same elementary school as Study 1. Procedure The procedure was the same as in Study 1, except for the social norm information provided by the experimenter. In the negative descriptive norm condition, the children were informed that other children had also played the game and that most of them untruthfully reported whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers. Results Overall, 71.9% ( N = 23) of children in the negative descriptive norm condition lied at least once across the entire task (percentage pre = 59.4%, N pre = 19; percentage post = 59.4%, N post = 19). Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig. 3 (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the three groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 3 condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, F (2, 93) = 11.12, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.19. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig. 3 (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the positive (Mean post = 0.25, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.29, SE pre = 0.04; p = 0.151) or negative (Mean post = 0.22, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.19, SE pre = 0.04; p = 0.155) descriptive norm conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean post = 0.27, SE post = 0.04 vs. Mean pre = 0.15, SE pre = 0.04; p < 0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior but rather prevented its escalation. Given the significant difference in pre-test lying rates between the control and positive descriptive norm conditions ( p = 0.025; see supplementary materials), a one-way ANCOVA was performed. This analysis used condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable, and pre-test lying rate as a covariate, thereby enhancing the reliability of the initial finding. After controlling for the lying rate in pre-test, results showed a significant main effect of condition ( F (2, 92) = 9.07, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.17). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig. 3 (c)) revealed that children in both the positive descriptive norm (Mean = 0.18, SE = 0.03; p < 0.001) and negative descriptive norm conditions (Mean = 0.24, SE = 0.02; p = 0.035) exhibited lower post-test lying rates relative to that in the control condition (Mean = 0.33, SE = 0.02), with no significant difference between the two descriptive norm conditions ( p = 0.239). Discussion Study 2 revealed that the negative descriptive norm condition, similar to the positive descriptive norm condition, showed no significant change in lying rates from pre-test to post-test, and that lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition were lower (not higher) than those in the control condition. This finding demonstrates that the behavioral effects of descriptive norms stem primarily from participants’ concerns about being caught rather than their genuine normative influence. Study 3 Study 3 included 10-year-old children to examine how age influences the effect of social norms on children’s lying. Method Participants A total of 120 10-year-olds were recruited from the same elementary school as Study 1 and Study 2. Participants were randomly assigned to the positive descriptive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; M age = 10.59 years, SD = 0.20), the negative descriptive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; M age = 10.52 years, SD = 0.28), the injunctive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; M age = 10.61 years, SD = 0.25) or the control condition (30 children, 15 boys; M age = 10.60 years, SD = 0.28). Procedure In Study 3, participants received one of four types of social norm information, directly drawn from the prior studies: the control condition from Study 1, the descriptive norm from Study 1, the injunctive norm from Study 1, and the negative descriptive norm from Study 2. The experimental protocol was otherwise identical to that of Studies 1 and 2. Results Overall, 52.5% ( N = 63) of children lied at least once across the entire task (percentage pre = 37.5%, N pre = 45; percentage post = 43.3%, N post = 52). Specifically, 40.0% ( N = 12) of children in the positive descriptive norm condition (percentage pre = 36.7%, N pre = 11; percentage post = 33.3%, N post = 10), 43.3% ( N = 13) of children in the negative descriptive norm condition (percentage pre = 33.3%, N pre = 10; percentage post = 26.7%, N post = 8), 66.7% ( N = 20) of children in the injunctive norm condition (percentage pre = 43.3%, N pre = 13; percentage post = 53.3%, N post = 16), and 60.0% ( N = 18) of children in the control condition(percentage pre = 36.7%, N pre = 11; percentage post = 60.0%, N post = 18) lied at least once across the entire task. Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig. 4 (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the four groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 4 condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, F (3, 116) = 5.59, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig. 4 (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the positive (Mean post = 0.07, SE post = 0.03 vs. Mean pre = 0.08, SE pre = 0.03; p = 0.775), negative (Mean post = 0.07, SE post = 0.03 vs. Mean pre = 0.07, SE pre = 0.03; p = 0.924) descriptive norm or the injunctive norm (Mean post = 0.15, SE post = 0.03 vs. Mean pre = 0.13, SE pre = 0.03; p = 0.455) conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean post = 0.20, SE post = 0.03 vs. Mean pre = 0.08, SE pre = 0.03; p < 0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior in 10-year-olds but rather prevented its escalation. Although the lying rates in the pre-test across conditions did not differ ( p = 0.430; see supplementary materials), we still conducted the one-way ANCOVA to controlling for the pre-test lying rate to be consistent with Study 1 and Study 2, with condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm condition) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant main effect of condition ( F (3, 115) = 6.25, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.14). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig. 4 (c)) revealed that children in both the positive descriptive norm (Mean = 0.08, SE = 0.02; p = 0.001) and negative descriptive norm (Mean = 0.09, SE = 0.02; p = 0.002) conditions exhibited lower post-test lying rates than those in the control condition (Mean = 0.21, SE = 0.02). The injunctive norm condition (Mean = 0.12, SE = 0.02) showed marginally lower lying rates than the control condition ( p = 0.060). No significant difference was found among the three social norm conditions ( ps = 1.000). The age effect of social norms on children’s lying A 4 condition (control condition, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 age (8 years old, 10 years old) ANOVA was conducted with difference in lying rate (post - pre) as a dependent variable, and both age and condition as between-subject variables, Results showed a significant main effect of condition, F (3, 240) = 13.79, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15. Post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction showed that difference in lying rate in control condition (Mean = 0.12, SE = 0.02) was larger than that in the positive descriptive norm condition (Mean = -0.02, SE = 0.02), negative descriptive norm condition (Mean = 0.02, SE = 0.12), and injunctive norm condition (Mean = -0.01, SE = 0.02), ps < 0.001. However, there were no significant differences among the three norm conditions, ps ≥ 0.659. There was no significant main effect of age, F (1, 240) = 0.28, p = 0.596, η p 2 = 0.01, or significant interaction between age and condition, F (3, 240) = 1.05, p = 0.373, η p 2 = 0.01. Discussion The present study examined the effects of descriptive and injunctive social norms on honesty in school-aged children. Results demonstrated that both 8-year-olds and 10-year-olds did not increase their lying for personal gain when informed that most children report honestly (descriptive norm) or that most children think one should report honestly (injunctive norm), compared to a control condition in which children lied significantly more in the post-test than pre-test. Critically, the effect of two types of norms in self-benefiting lying did not differ. Furthermore, contrary to our hypothesis, the effectiveness of both social norms was equivalent across the two age groups. These findings provide evidence that social norms exert an influence on children’s honest behavior. First, inconsistent with our hypothesis, exposure to descriptive norm information did not significantly reduced lying behavior for personal gain. In contrast, it prevents an increase in lying behavior given that lying behavior increased from pre-test to post-test in the control condition. Although we did not expect that this increase in lying in the control condition, it could be explained by that children becomes more capable of justifying their lying behavior (Shalvi et al., 2015 ; Sai et al., 2025 ), or children may become to think lying will not get bad consequences as the game progresses (Dai et al., 2026 ). Furthermore, descriptive norms can only prevent children’s lying increase rather than directly reducing children’s lying. This maybe because the two reasons above reduced the effect of descriptive norms. This finding suggests that social norms may have compromised effect to reducing lying behavior in repeated trials situations. This extends the findings of Liu et al. ( 2022 ) and indicates that descriptive norms can effectively influence honesty not only in preschoolers but also in school-aged children. Descriptive norms operate by highlighting the prevalence of a behavior (e.g., “most children do this”), thereby influencing individuals through social proof (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2022 ). Our results align with research demonstrating that children become more honest after observing peers behaving honestly (Ma et al., 2018 ; Engarhos et al., 2020 ), suggesting that perceived commonality of honest behavior motivates conformity. A frequent argument regarding the effectiveness of descriptive norms is that children’s compliance might stem not from internalized norms, but from increased concern about being caught, particularly if they suspect the experimenter has means to detect lies (e.g., in tasks like the temptation resistance paradigm). To address this potential confound, we included a negative norm condition where children were told that most children lie in this situation. We found that children in the negative descriptive norm condition also lied less than children in the control condition, but their lying rates were similar to positive descriptive norm conditions. This result may suggest that detection concerns mainly explain the effect of descriptive norms. Injunctive norms, which emphasize social approval or disapproval (e.g., “most children think one should do this”), also effectively, prevent an increase in children’s lying. This indicates that children adjust their behavior based on their perceptions of peer expectations regarding honesty. This finding is consistent with findings from Alempaki et al. ( 2021 ), which also show that children become more honest after hearing other children told the truth. Our study further converges with evidence demonstrating that injunctive norms promote prosocial behaviors in children, such as generosity and pro-environmental actions (Raihani & McAuliffe, 2014 ; Gugenishvili & Colliander, 2023 ; Helferich et al., 2023 ; Ren et al., 2024 ). However, it is important to note that our injunctive norm manipulation specifically used peer expectations (“most other children think one should be honest”). Future research should systematically compare the impact of injunctive norms stemming from different sources (e.g., parents or teachers) to determine if their influence varies. We found no significant difference in the effectiveness of descriptive versus injunctive norms in children’s lying for personal gain. This equivalence aligns with several studies showing similar effects for both norm types in various domains (Liu et al., 2022 ; McAuliffe et al., 2017 ). One potential explanation is that children may interpret descriptive norm information (“most children do this”) as implicitly conveying injunctive meaning (“most children think this is the right thing to do”), blurring the distinction in this context. Alternatively, both types of norms may activate a shared underlying motivation for social conformity or a desire for social approval among peers during middle childhood. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no evidence that the effectiveness of either social norm increased with age between 8 and 10 years. This null age effect is notable given substantial evidence that children’s understanding of social norms, their complexity, and their motivations for conformity typically develop significantly during this period. Several factors might explain this finding. First, both age groups may already possess sufficient social-cognitive maturity (e.g., theory of mind, understanding of social rules) to comprehend and be influenced by these explicit peer norm messages. Second, the desire for peer affiliation and conformity is strong throughout middle childhood, potentially creating a floor effect where both ages are similarly responsive. Third, the specific norm message used (“most children”) may have been equally salient and persuasive to both age groups. Future research should explore whether more nuanced norm manipulations or different age ranges reveal developmental trajectories. Limitations and future directions Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, our sample was drawn from China; findings may not generalize to all cultural or demographic contexts. Second, we examined the effect of social norms on lying for self-profit in a spin task; the generalizability to other paradigms or real-world lying behaviors requires further investigation. Thirdly, we focused on peer norms; the influence of adult norms (parents, teachers) warrants separate examination. Finally, the mechanisms underlying norm compliance (e.g., internalization vs. social approval seeking) were not directly measured and represent an important avenue for future research. Conclusion In summary, this study provides evidence that both descriptive and injunctive social norms effectively influence lying behavior for self-benefit in 8- and 10-year-old children, with no significant difference in the potency of these norm types or their impact across this age range. These findings highlight the powerful role of perceived peer behavior and peer expectations in shaping children’s moral conduct during middle childhood. The results suggest that interventions aimed at promoting honesty could be effectively designed around communicating positive peer norms, emphasizing either the commonality of honest behavior or peer approval for honesty. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University (Approval No: 2023011, Date: 13/04/2023), and all procedures were conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians, and verbal assent was obtained from all participating children. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research was supported by the Science and Technology Innovation 2030 “Brain Science and Brain-like Research” Major Project (2022ZD0210800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271111). Author Contribution Conceptualization: LS and JQ; methodology: XL, GC and XH; data collection: MZ and XH; formal analysis: XL and GC; writing-original draft: XL and GC; validation: MZ; writing-review and editing: LS; supervision: JQ. Acknowledgement This research was supported by the Science and Technology Innovation 2030 “Brain Science and Brain-like Research” Major Project (2022ZD0210800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271111). Data Availability The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Alempaki D, Fu G, Fu J. (2021). Lying and social norms: A lab-in-the-field experiment with children (No. 2021-01). CeDEx Discussion Paper Series. Ayal S, Celse J, Hochman G. Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2021;166:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003 . Bicchieri C, Dimant E. Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information. Public Choice. 2022;191(3):443–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6 . Bobek DD, Hageman AM, Kelliher CF. Analyzing the role of social norms in tax compliance behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2013;115(3):451–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1390-7 . Bender J, O’Connor AM, Evans AD. Mirror, mirror on the wall: Increasing young children’s honesty through inducing self-awareness. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;167:414–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.001 . Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge; 2013. Champely S. (2020). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (Version 1.3-0) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna, editor, Advances In Experimental Social Psychology , 24, 201–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5 Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1990;58(6):1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 . Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume 1–2, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 151–92. Dai M, Zhu S, Sun Z, Fu G, Sai L, Heyman GD. Inter-and intra-individual flexibility in honesty default tendencies in children and adolescents. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2026;103:101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2025.101921 . Ding XP, O’Connor AM, Weng M, Tang Q, Fu G, Evans AD. The effects of self-and other-awareness on Chinese children’s truth-telling. Br J Dev Psychol. 2019;37(3):323–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12275 . Dimant E, Van Kleef GA, Shalvi S. Requiem for a nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty. J Econ Behav Organ. 2020;172:247–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.015 . Evans AD, Lee K. (2013). Emergence of lying in very young children. Developmental Psychology , 49 (10), 1958. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031409 Engarhos P, Shohoudi A, Crossman A, Talwar V. Learning through observing: Effects of modeling truth-and lie‐telling on children’s honesty. Dev Sci. 2020;23(1):e12883. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12883 . Gugenishvili I, Colliander J. I will only help if others tell me to do so! The simultaneous influence of injunctive and descriptive norms on donations. Voluntary Sect Rev. 2023;14(3):421–44. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080521X16442337687557 . House BR, Tomasello M. Modeling social norms increasingly influences costly sharing in middle childhood. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;171:84–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.014 . Heyman GD, Ding XP, Fu G, Xu F, Compton BJ, Lee K. Young children selectively hide the truth about sensitive topics. Cogn Sci. 2020;44(3):e12824. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12824 . Hang H, Davies I, Schüring J. Children’s conformity to social norms to eat healthy: A developmental perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2020;244:112666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112666 . Helferich M, Thøgersen J, Bergquist M. Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro-environmental behavior. Glob Environ Change. 2023;80:102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102680 . Jimenez P, Iyer GS. Tax compliance in a social setting: The influence of social norms, trust in government, and perceived fairness on taxpayer compliance. Adv Acc. 2016;34:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.07.001 . Lois G, Wessa M. Honest mistake or perhaps not: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms on the magnitude of dishonesty. J Behav Decis Mak. 2021;34(1):20–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2196 . Lee K, Talwar V, McCarthy A, Ross I, Evans A, Arruda C. Can classic moral stories promote honesty in children? Psychol Sci. 2014;25(8):1630–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536401 . Liu X, Zhao C, Zhang X, Compton BJ, Sai L, Heyman GD. Messaging about descriptive and injunctive norms can promote honesty in young children. Child Dev. 2022;93(6):e598–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13830 . Mitra A, Shahriar Q. Why is dishonesty difficult to mitigate? The interaction between descriptive norm and monetary incentive. J Econ Psychol. 2020;80:102292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102292 . Ma F, Heyman GD, Jing C, Fu Y, Compton BJ, Xu F, Lee K. Promoting honesty in young children through observational learning. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;167:234–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.003 . McAuliffe K, Raihani NJ, Dunham Y. Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition. 2017;167:151–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.006 . Ren M, Zhong B, Fan W. The impact of descriptive and injunctive social norms on pro-environmental behavior: A study using eye-tracking technology. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(45):34761–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06909-2 . Raihani NJ, McAuliffe K. Dictator game giving: The importance of descriptive versus injunctive norms. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e113826. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113826 . Smetana JG. Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In: Killen M, Smetana JG, editors. Handbook of Moral Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. pp. 119–53. Sai L, Bi Y, Yu C, Ding XP. The power of the lens: Filming increases honesty in children as young as five. J Behav Decis Mak. 2024;37(1):e2351. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2351 . Sai L, Shang S, Zhao C, Liu X, Jiang Y, Compton BJ, Heyman GD. The developmental origins of a default moral response: A shift from honesty to dishonesty. Child Dev. 2022;93(4):1154–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13755 . Sai L, Wang C, Lv Y, Bellucci G. Neurocomputational mechanisms of personal benefits and justifications in moral decision-making. Commun Biology. 2025;8(1):906. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-025-08256-9 . Sharps M, Robinson E. Encouraging children to eat more fruit and vegetables: Health vs. descriptive social norm-based messages. Appetite. 2016;100:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.031 . Shalvi S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ayal S. Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24(2):125–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553264 . Turiel E. The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge University Press; 2002. Talwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay RCL. Children’s conceptual knowledge of lying and its relation to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence examinations. Law Hum Behav. 2002;26(4):395–415. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016379104959 . Talwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay RCL. Children’s lie-telling to conceal a parent’s transgression: Legal implications. Law Hum Behav. 2004;28(4):411–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039333.51399.f6 . Talwar V, Yachison S, Leduc K. Promoting honesty: The influence of stories on children’s lie-telling behaviours and moral understanding. Infant Child Dev. 2016;25(6):484–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1949 . Talwar V, Yachison S, Leduc K, Nagar PM. Practice makes perfect? The impact of coaching and moral stories on children’s lie-telling. Int J Behav Dev. 2018;42(4):416–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417728583 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterials.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 May, 2026 Editor invited by journal 25 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 23 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 21 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9490123","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":638861893,"identity":"e7e014e4-9c3e-41aa-b86e-797b633b1f97","order_by":0,"name":"Xue Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xue","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":638861894,"identity":"0dc07811-21a0-4805-bfda-d03846703640","order_by":1,"name":"Guotian Cai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hangzhou Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guotian","middleName":"","lastName":"Cai","suffix":""},{"id":638861895,"identity":"878c6b9e-7fee-4f81-9bce-caf180dfb686","order_by":2,"name":"Mo Zheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hangzhou Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mo","middleName":"","lastName":"Zheng","suffix":""},{"id":638861896,"identity":"c9659bc6-37e8-4666-90ac-e684ef6ad763","order_by":3,"name":"Xintai Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hangzhou Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xintai","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":638861897,"identity":"d7d0f917-e593-4572-80e9-82159d64f82e","order_by":4,"name":"Liyang Sai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hangzhou Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liyang","middleName":"","lastName":"Sai","suffix":""},{"id":638861898,"identity":"583def39-937b-4c2b-9fab-5e91dcaf0f89","order_by":5,"name":"Jinliang Qin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhejiang Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jinliang","middleName":"","lastName":"Qin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-22 03:12:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109222259,"identity":"33ce0b5e-b173-4a6b-b443-46199e31d63e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 21:06:41","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":136124,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe experimental procedure. Children first completed a spin game as a pre-test, were then presented with social norm information, and finally completed the same game again as a post-test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/35c06939211a4a3bb06a7b55.png"},{"id":109216540,"identity":"c640c085-cc30-4439-a53c-91ddf7db8b54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 18:06:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":104801,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of Study 1. (a) Violin plot of lying rates in pre-test and post-test for 8-year-old children under three conditions. For each condition and phase, the line indicates the mean, and the ends of the whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (b). Estimated marginal means of children’s lying rates before and after the manipulation for each condition. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (c) Estimated marginal means of children’s post-test lying rates in the spin task, after controlling for pre-test lying rates. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. \u003cem\u003eNote: \u003c/em\u003eCC = Control Condition, DNC = Descriptive Norm Condition, INC = Injunctive Norm Condition. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/38ed6b9cb6f60e5aed4d2180.png"},{"id":109222311,"identity":"6309ccb3-d176-4911-a8df-23c7d36498a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 21:07:14","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of Study 2. (a) Violin plot of lying rates in pre-test and post-test for 8-year-old children under three conditions. For each condition and phase, the line indicates the mean, and the ends of the whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (b). Estimated marginal means of children’s lying rates before and after the manipulation for each condition. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (c) Estimated marginal means of children’s post-test lying rates in the spin task, after controlling for pre-test lying rates. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. \u003cem\u003eNote: \u003c/em\u003eCC = Control Condition, PNC = Positive Descriptive Norm Condition, NNC = Negative Descriptive Norm Condition. *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/abf9475bb7a1d021f10609bc.png"},{"id":109295973,"identity":"6b35c4ee-dafa-485f-b5f0-bf257890b176","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 08:42:25","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86308,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of Study 3. (a) Violin plot of lying rates in pre-test and post-test for 10-year-old children under four conditions. For each condition and phase, the line indicates the mean, and the ends of the whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (b). Estimated marginal means of children’s lying rates before and after the manipulation for each condition. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. (c) Estimated marginal means of children’s post-test lying rates in the spin task, after controlling for pre-test lying rates. Whiskers indicate the 95% CI. \u003cem\u003eNote: \u003c/em\u003eCC = Control Condition, PNC = Positive Descriptive Norm Condition, NNC = Negative Descriptive Norm Condition, INC = Injunctive Norm Condition. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, \u003csup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep =\u003c/em\u003e 0.060.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/7373c808bf353b95f791adfb.png"},{"id":109297185,"identity":"00dc3b6e-ed8d-4633-86d5-31a78e8f47d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 08:54:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":679999,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/255600e4-b9c3-45e8-8d94-51cbd89d3023.pdf"},{"id":109216538,"identity":"c36d72ad-f989-42ba-bc66-d96f77dd437f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 18:06:24","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":11792,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterials.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9490123/v1/34c2052c49f368f92c01376d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Honesty in School-Aged Children","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHonesty is essential for establishing trust in relationships and is a fundamental virtue that holds significant importance in both personal and societal contexts. Despite its cross-cultural primacy, developmental studies reveal that children routinely engage in dishonest behavior even when recognizing honesty as a moral imperative (Heyman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Building on social norm theory emphasizing that people\u0026rsquo;s behavior is influenced by what other people do or what other people approve of (Cialdini, Reno, \u0026amp; Kallgren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e, 1991), the present study investigates whether exposure to peer truth-telling (a descriptive norm) and peer approval of truth-telling (an injunctive norm) can counteract self-serving motives to promote honesty in school-age children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial norms are rules and standards understood by group members that guide behavior without the force of laws (Cialdini \u0026amp; Trost, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Cialdini and his colleagues distinguish between two types of social norms: descriptive norms, which convey information about what people typically do, and injunctive norms, which indicate what people ought to do or what is socially approved (Cialdini, Reno, \u0026amp; Kallgren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e, 1991). Both descriptive and injunctive norms have been found to influence a wide range of social behaviors, such as promoting pro-environmental actions (Helferich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), increasing tax compliance (Bobek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Jimenez \u0026amp; Iyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), and enhancing generosity (Raihani \u0026amp; McAuliffe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gugenishvili \u0026amp; Colliander, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent empirical studies have begun to investigate the effect of social norms on dishonest behavior in adults but have yielded mixed evidence. Dimant et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) employed a private die-rolling paradigm where participants, incentivized monetarily to report dishonestly, received either descriptive norms (\u0026ldquo;most participants report honestly\u0026rdquo;) or injunctive norms (\u0026ldquo;most believe one should report honestly\u0026rdquo;). They found that neither norm type increased honest behavior (Dimant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, Ayal et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that descriptive norms (\u0026ldquo;most individuals are honest\u0026rdquo;) eliminated lying in a comparable task. Further, Lois and Wessa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that negative descriptive norms (\u0026ldquo;most peer cheating\u0026rdquo;) increased major dishonesty, while injunctive norms only marginally reduced minor dishonesty. Adding nuance, Mitra and Shahriar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that the effect of descriptive norms depends on the benefit level: norms promoting dishonesty increased lying when benefits were low, whereas honesty norms failed to reduce lying when benefits were high. Collectively, these findings indicate that normative influences on dishonesty are moderated by context, norm valence, and cost-benefit calculus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this extensive adult literature, the impact of social norms on children\u0026rsquo;s dishonest behavior remains largely unexplored. This gap is particularly salient given that children begin lying in early childhood (Evans \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Although developmental studies have identified effective honesty-promotion strategies such as, making children promise to tell the truth (Talwar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), telling children moral stories (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Talwar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), increasing children\u0026rsquo;s self-awareness by putting a mirror in front of them (Bender et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ding et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Sai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), only one study has directly examined the effect of social norms. Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) used a temptation resistance paradigm where 3- to 6-year-olds were instructed not to peek at a toy in the experimenter\u0026rsquo;s absence. After most children peeked, those exposed to either descriptive norms (\u0026ldquo;most children who peeked confess\u0026rdquo;) or injunctive norms (\u0026ldquo;most approve of confessing\u0026rdquo;) were significantly more likely to confess\u0026mdash;with comparable effects between norm types. This provides initial evidence that both norms can promote honesty in young children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhether such effects extend to school-aged children is unknown, despite evidence that norms influence other behaviors in this group. McAuliffe et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that descriptive and injunctive norms similarly increased generosity among 4- to 9-year-olds. Conversely, House and Tomasello (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) reported that injunctive norms exerted stronger effects than descriptive norms on generosity in 6- to 11-year-olds. Research has also examined the effect of social norms on children\u0026rsquo;s dietary behavior. For example, Hang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) observed that descriptive norms (\u0026ldquo;most children eat fruits/vegetables\u0026rdquo;) increased consumption in 7- to 13-year-olds, whereas injunctive norms (\u0026ldquo;most believe one should eat them\u0026rdquo;) had no effect. Sharps and Robinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), however, found null effects of descriptive norms on food choices in 6- to 11-year-olds. Thus, while norms modulate some behaviors in school-aged children, their efficacy and relative potency vary across domains which underscores the need to examine their role in dishonesty specifically.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"The present study","content":"\u003cp\u003eTaken together, this study employed a spin task paradigm (Sai et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) to systematically investigate the effects of descriptive and injunctive norms on honesty among 8- to 10-year-olds. In this task, children spun a wheel and reported whether the outcome matched a predetermined “lucky number”. They received a material reward for each reported match, providing an opportunity to misreport outcomes for personal gain. This paradigm was selected because it assesses reward motivated lying in children, aligning with the type of dishonesty commonly examined in adult samples (Dimant et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mitra \u0026amp; Shahriar, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). There are three hypotheses: First, extending Liu et al.’s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) finding that both norms increase truth-telling in preschoolers, we hypothesize that exposure to descriptive norms (“most children are honest”) or injunctive norms (“most believe one should be honest”) will significantly reduce lying rates compared to a no-norm control condition. Second, we propose no hypothesis about which norms is more effective since controversial findings in prosocial behavior research (McAuliffe et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; House \u0026amp; Tomasello, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Third, based on established evidence that norm internalization progresses with age during middle childhood (Turiel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), we predict that 10-year-olds will show significantly stronger responses to both social norms than 8-year-olds. This age effect stems from children’s cumulative socialization experiences, which enhance their understanding and adoption of societal standards (Smetana, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Study 1","content":"\u003ch2\u003eMethod\u003c/h2\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 96 8-year-olds were recruited from one elementary school in an urban city in eastern China. The experimental language and the routine language of the school environment were Mandarin Chinese. Participants were randomly assigned to the descriptive norm condition (32 children, 15 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.33 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.20), the injunctive norm condition (32 children, 16 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.42 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.18) or the control condition (32 children, 16 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.37 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.17). A priori power analysis was conducted in R 4.5.0 with the pwr 1.3-0 package (Champely, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) to detect a medium effect size (Cohen’s \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e = 0.25; Cohen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) with 0.9 Power (1-\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e) at \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = 0.05. This indicated a required sample size of 81 children (27 children for each condition) to detect a significant interaction effect in a two-way mixed ANOVA. Informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians, and children also provided verbal consent before participating. All the studies were approved by the university ethics review board.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren were tested individually in a quiet room at their school by a male experimenter. The session began with the experimenter explaining to the child that they would play a \u0026ldquo;spin game\u0026rdquo;. Each child was instructed to think of a lucky number ranging from 1 to 6 and was informed that spinning this number would yield a prize. To control for individual differences in tendency to lie, a 3 condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm)*2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed design was used. Children were informed that there would be two rounds in the game, with eight trials in each round. In each trial, children first spun the spinner and then reported whether the outcome matched their lucky numbers. If the numbers matched, participants marked a check (\u0026radic;) on a sheet. After completing the first round, the children were given a break before proceeding to the second round. During the break, the experimenter provided children with the social norm information. In the control condition, children were told that other participants had played the game and that most of them thought it was a fun activity. In the \u003cem\u003edescriptive norm\u003c/em\u003e condition, children were informed that most of other participants honestly reported whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers. In the \u003cem\u003einjunctive norm\u003c/em\u003e condition, children were told that other participants believed that they should honestly report whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers. After the social norm information was presented, the second round began (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore the formal experiment, children practiced with two trials to ensure they understood the game. During the formal experiment, the experimenter had an excuse to leave the room. Unbeknownst to the participants, a hidden camera was placed in the room to monitor the spinning. If children reported that their outcome matched their lucky number while they did not actually spin that number, it was counted as lying. After the experiment, the experimenter reviewed the video to determine whether the children had lied. The lying rates in the pre- and post-test were calculated as follows: lying frequency divided by the total number of test trials excluding matching trials (lying rate\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;lying frequency / (8 - matching trials)).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 74.0% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71) of children lied at least once across the entire task (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 64.6%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 62; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 69.8%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 67). Specifically, 71.9% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23) of children in the descriptive norm condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 71.9%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 23; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 65.6%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 21), 71.9% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23) of children in the injunctive norm condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 65.6%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 21; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 65.6%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 21), and 78.1% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25) of children in the control condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 56.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 18; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 78.1%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 25) lied at least once across the entire task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the three groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 3 condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 93)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the descriptive norm (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.25, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.29, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.149) and injunctive norm (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.21, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.23, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.226) conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.27, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.15, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior but rather prevented its escalation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the significant difference in pre-test lying rates between the control and descriptive norm conditions (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029; see supplementary materials), a one-way ANCOVA was performed. This analysis used condition (control, descriptive norm, injunctive norm) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable, and pre-test lying rate as a covariate, thereby enhancing the reliability of the initial finding. After controlling for the lying rate in pre-test, results showed a significant main effect of condition (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 92)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.19). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e (c)) revealed that children in both the descriptive norm (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) and injunctive norm conditions (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) exhibited lower post-test lying rates relative to that in the control condition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02), with no significant difference between the descriptive norm and the injunctive norm conditions (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDiscussion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that providing eight-year-old children with either descriptive or injunctive norm information did not reduce lying for personal gain, but rather prevented an increase in dishonest behavior over time. In contrast, children in the control condition showed a significant rise in lying behavior from the pre-test to the post-test. This increase may occur because, after repeated exposure to the same task, children become more capable of justifying their dishonest behavior (Shalvi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) or realize that lying carries no negative consequences (Dai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, exposure to social norms information appeared to inhibit this escalation of dishonesty. Being reminded that most peers tell the truth or believe that one should report honestly may have made children more aware of social expectations surrounding honesty (House, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Under such mixed motivational pressures\u0026mdash;balancing personal gain against the desire to conform to peer norms\u0026mdash;children chose not to increase their dishonest behavior. Thus, social norms information may serve as a stabilizing factor that maintains honesty levels, even if it does not directly reduce lying.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 2","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 1 demonstrated that descriptive norms can prevent an increase in lying behavior. However, previous research suggests that the effect of descriptive norms may arise because the information provided (i.e., that most children honestly reported their outcomes) leads children to suspect that the experimenter has a way to detect their lies (Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). If this is the case, the effect observed may not be a true reflection of descriptive norms but rather a result of children’s concerns about the consequences of being caught.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address this issue, Study 2 introduced a \u003cem\u003enegative descriptive norm\u003c/em\u003e condition, where children were informed that most children falsely reported their outcomes in many trials. If the effect is indeed due to descriptive norms, we would expect lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition to be higher in the post-test than in the pre-test. Conversely, if the concern about being caught is the driving factor, we would expect the lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition to be similar to those in the positive descriptive norm condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethod\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 32 8-year-olds (16 boys; M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.42 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.21) were recruited from the same elementary school as Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe procedure was the same as in Study 1, except for the social norm information provided by the experimenter. In the \u003cem\u003enegative descriptive\u003c/em\u003e norm condition, the children were informed that other children had also played the game and that most of them untruthfully reported whether their outcomes matched their lucky numbers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 71.9% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 23) of children in the negative descriptive norm condition lied at least once across the entire task (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 59.4%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 19; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 59.4%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 19).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the three groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 3 condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 93) = 11.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.19. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the positive (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.25, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.29, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.151) or negative (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.22, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.19, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.155) descriptive norm conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.27, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.15, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.04; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior but rather prevented its escalation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the significant difference in pre-test lying rates between the control and positive descriptive norm conditions (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.025; see supplementary materials), a one-way ANCOVA was performed. This analysis used condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable, and pre-test lying rate as a covariate, thereby enhancing the reliability of the initial finding. After controlling for the lying rate in pre-test, results showed a significant main effect of condition (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 92) = 9.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.17). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e (c)) revealed that children in both the positive descriptive norm (Mean = 0.18, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.03; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) and negative descriptive norm conditions (Mean = 0.24, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.035) exhibited lower post-test lying rates relative to that in the control condition (Mean = 0.33, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02), with no significant difference between the two descriptive norm conditions (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.239).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDiscussion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy 2 revealed that the negative descriptive norm condition, similar to the positive descriptive norm condition, showed no significant change in lying rates from pre-test to post-test, and that lying rates in the negative descriptive norm condition were lower (not higher) than those in the control condition. This finding demonstrates that the behavioral effects of descriptive norms stem primarily from participants’ concerns about being caught rather than their genuine normative influence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Study 3","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 3 included 10-year-old children to examine how age influences the effect of social norms on children’s lying.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethod\u003c/h2\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 120 10-year-olds were recruited from the same elementary school as Study 1 and Study 2. Participants were randomly assigned to the positive descriptive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage = 10.59 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.20), the negative descriptive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage = 10.52 years, SD = 0.28), the injunctive norm condition (30 children, 15 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage = 10.61 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.25) or the control condition (30 children, 15 boys; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage = 10.60 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.28).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Study 3, participants received one of four types of social norm information, directly drawn from the prior studies: the control condition from Study 1, the descriptive norm from Study 1, the injunctive norm from Study 1, and the negative descriptive norm from Study 2. The experimental protocol was otherwise identical to that of Studies 1 and 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 52.5% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;63) of children lied at least once across the entire task (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 37.5%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 45; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 43.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 52). Specifically, 40.0% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12) of children in the positive descriptive norm condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 36.7%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 11; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 33.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 10), 43.3% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13) of children in the negative descriptive norm condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 33.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 10; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 26.7%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 8), 66.7% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20) of children in the injunctive norm condition (percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 43.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 13; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 53.3%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 16), and 60.0% (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18) of children in the control condition(percentage\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 36.7%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 11; percentage\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 60.0%, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 18) lied at least once across the entire task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test lying rates for each condition are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e (a). First, to explore whether lying rates differed among the four groups across the pre-test and post-test, a 4 condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 phase (pre-test, post-test) mixed ANOVA was conducted with lying rate as a dependent variable, condition as a between-subject variable, and phase as a within-subject variable. Results showed a significant interaction between condition and phase, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13. Simple effect of phase within each condition (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e (b)) showed that lying rates did not significantly change from pre-test to post-test in the positive (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.07, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.08, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.775), negative (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.07, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.07, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.924) descriptive norm or the injunctive norm (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.15, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.13, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.455) conditions, but increased significantly in the control condition (Mean\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.20, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epost\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03 vs. Mean\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.08, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003epre\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.03; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This suggests that social norm information did not directly reduce lying behavior in 10-year-olds but rather prevented its escalation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the lying rates in the pre-test across conditions did not differ (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.430; see supplementary materials), we still conducted the one-way ANCOVA to controlling for the pre-test lying rate to be consistent with Study 1 and Study 2, with condition (control, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm condition) as the fixed factor, post-test lying rate as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant main effect of condition (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 115)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14). Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e (c)) revealed that children in both the positive descriptive norm (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) and negative descriptive norm (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002) conditions exhibited lower post-test lying rates than those in the control condition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02). The injunctive norm condition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02) showed marginally lower lying rates than the control condition (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.060). No significant difference was found among the three social norm conditions (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe age effect of social norms on children\u0026rsquo;s lying\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 4 condition (control condition, positive descriptive norm, negative descriptive norm, injunctive norm) * 2 age (8 years old, 10 years old) ANOVA was conducted with difference in lying rate (post - pre) as a dependent variable, and both age and condition as between-subject variables, Results showed a significant main effect of condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15. Post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction showed that difference in lying rate in control condition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02) was larger than that in the positive descriptive norm condition (Mean = -0.02, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02), negative descriptive norm condition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12), and injunctive norm condition (Mean = -0.01, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02), \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. However, there were no significant differences among the three norm conditions, \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.659. There was no significant main effect of age, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.596, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.01, or significant interaction between age and condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 240)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.373, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDiscussion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study examined the effects of descriptive and injunctive social norms on honesty in school-aged children. Results demonstrated that both 8-year-olds and 10-year-olds did not increase their lying for personal gain when informed that most children report honestly (descriptive norm) or that most children think one should report honestly (injunctive norm), compared to a control condition in which children lied significantly more in the post-test than pre-test. Critically, the effect of two types of norms in self-benefiting lying did not differ. Furthermore, contrary to our hypothesis, the effectiveness of both social norms was equivalent across the two age groups. These findings provide evidence that social norms exert an influence on children\u0026rsquo;s honest behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, inconsistent with our hypothesis, exposure to descriptive norm information did not significantly reduced lying behavior for personal gain. In contrast, it prevents an increase in lying behavior given that lying behavior increased from pre-test to post-test in the control condition. Although we did not expect that this increase in lying in the control condition, it could be explained by that children becomes more capable of justifying their lying behavior (Shalvi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), or children may become to think lying will not get bad consequences as the game progresses (Dai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, descriptive norms can only prevent children\u0026rsquo;s lying increase rather than directly reducing children\u0026rsquo;s lying. This maybe because the two reasons above reduced the effect of descriptive norms. This finding suggests that social norms may have compromised effect to reducing lying behavior in repeated trials situations. This extends the findings of Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and indicates that descriptive norms can effectively influence honesty not only in preschoolers but also in school-aged children. Descriptive norms operate by highlighting the prevalence of a behavior (e.g., \u0026ldquo;most children do this\u0026rdquo;), thereby influencing individuals through social proof (Bicchieri \u0026amp; Dimant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Our results align with research demonstrating that children become more honest after observing peers behaving honestly (Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Engarhos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that perceived commonality of honest behavior motivates conformity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA frequent argument regarding the effectiveness of descriptive norms is that children\u0026rsquo;s compliance might stem not from internalized norms, but from increased concern about being caught, particularly if they suspect the experimenter has means to detect lies (e.g., in tasks like the temptation resistance paradigm). To address this potential confound, we included a negative norm condition where children were told that most children lie in this situation. We found that children in the negative descriptive norm condition also lied less than children in the control condition, but their lying rates were similar to positive descriptive norm conditions. This result may suggest that detection concerns mainly explain the effect of descriptive norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInjunctive norms, which emphasize social approval or disapproval (e.g., \u0026ldquo;most children think one should do this\u0026rdquo;), also effectively, prevent an increase in children\u0026rsquo;s lying. This indicates that children adjust their behavior based on their perceptions of peer expectations regarding honesty. This finding is consistent with findings from Alempaki et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), which also show that children become more honest after hearing other children told the truth. Our study further converges with evidence demonstrating that injunctive norms promote prosocial behaviors in children, such as generosity and pro-environmental actions (Raihani \u0026amp; McAuliffe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gugenishvili \u0026amp; Colliander, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Helferich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is important to note that our injunctive norm manipulation specifically used peer expectations (\u0026ldquo;most other children think one should be honest\u0026rdquo;). Future research should systematically compare the impact of injunctive norms stemming from different sources (e.g., parents or teachers) to determine if their influence varies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe found no significant difference in the effectiveness of descriptive versus injunctive norms in children\u0026rsquo;s lying for personal gain. This equivalence aligns with several studies showing similar effects for both norm types in various domains (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; McAuliffe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). One potential explanation is that children may interpret descriptive norm information (\u0026ldquo;most children do this\u0026rdquo;) as implicitly conveying injunctive meaning (\u0026ldquo;most children think this is the right thing to do\u0026rdquo;), blurring the distinction in this context. Alternatively, both types of norms may activate a shared underlying motivation for social conformity or a desire for social approval among peers during middle childhood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to our hypothesis, we found no evidence that the effectiveness of either social norm increased with age between 8 and 10 years. This null age effect is notable given substantial evidence that children\u0026rsquo;s understanding of social norms, their complexity, and their motivations for conformity typically develop significantly during this period. Several factors might explain this finding. First, both age groups may already possess sufficient social-cognitive maturity (e.g., theory of mind, understanding of social rules) to comprehend and be influenced by these explicit peer norm messages. Second, the desire for peer affiliation and conformity is strong throughout middle childhood, potentially creating a floor effect where both ages are similarly responsive. Third, the specific norm message used (\u0026ldquo;most children\u0026rdquo;) may have been equally salient and persuasive to both age groups. Future research should explore whether more nuanced norm manipulations or different age ranges reveal developmental trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and future directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations should be acknowledged. First, our sample was drawn from China; findings may not generalize to all cultural or demographic contexts. Second, we examined the effect of social norms on lying for self-profit in a spin task; the generalizability to other paradigms or real-world lying behaviors requires further investigation. Thirdly, we focused on peer norms; the influence of adult norms (parents, teachers) warrants separate examination. Finally, the mechanisms underlying norm compliance (e.g., internalization vs. social approval seeking) were not directly measured and represent an important avenue for future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study provides evidence that both descriptive and injunctive social norms effectively influence lying behavior for self-benefit in 8- and 10-year-old children, with no significant difference in the potency of these norm types or their impact across this age range. These findings highlight the powerful role of perceived peer behavior and peer expectations in shaping children\u0026rsquo;s moral conduct during middle childhood. The results suggest that interventions aimed at promoting honesty could be effectively designed around communicating positive peer norms, emphasizing either the commonality of honest behavior or peer approval for honesty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University (Approval No: 2023011, Date: 13/04/2023), and all procedures were conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians, and verbal assent was obtained from all participating children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the Science and Technology Innovation 2030 \u0026ldquo;Brain Science and Brain-like Research\u0026rdquo; Major Project (2022ZD0210800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271111).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: LS and JQ; methodology: XL, GC and XH; data collection: MZ and XH; formal analysis: XL and GC; writing-original draft: XL and GC; validation: MZ; writing-review and editing: LS; supervision: JQ.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the Science and Technology Innovation 2030 \u0026ldquo;Brain Science and Brain-like Research\u0026rdquo; Major Project (2022ZD0210800), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271111).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlempaki D, Fu G, Fu J. (2021). \u003cem\u003eLying and social norms: A lab-in-the-field experiment with children\u003c/em\u003e (No. 2021-01). CeDEx Discussion Paper Series.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyal S, Celse J, Hochman G. Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2021;166:9\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBicchieri C, Dimant E. Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information. Public Choice. 2022;191(3):443\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBobek DD, Hageman AM, Kelliher CF. Analyzing the role of social norms in tax compliance behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2013;115(3):451\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1390-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-012-1390-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBender J, O\u0026rsquo;Connor AM, Evans AD. Mirror, mirror on the wall: Increasing young children\u0026rsquo;s honesty through inducing self-awareness. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;167:414\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChampely S. (2020). \u003cem\u003epwr: Basic functions for power analysis\u003c/em\u003e (Version 1.3-0) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna, editor, \u003cem\u003eAdvances In Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 24, 201\u0026ndash;234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1990;58(6):1015. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume 1\u0026ndash;2, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 151\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDai M, Zhu S, Sun Z, Fu G, Sai L, Heyman GD. Inter-and intra-individual flexibility in honesty default tendencies in children and adolescents. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2026;103:101921. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2025.101921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appdev.2025.101921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing XP, O\u0026rsquo;Connor AM, Weng M, Tang Q, Fu G, Evans AD. The effects of self-and other-awareness on Chinese children\u0026rsquo;s truth-telling. Br J Dev Psychol. 2019;37(3):323\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12275\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/bjdp.12275\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDimant E, Van Kleef GA, Shalvi S. Requiem for a nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty. J Econ Behav Organ. 2020;172:247\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans AD, Lee K. (2013). Emergence of lying in very young children. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1958. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0031409\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0031409\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngarhos P, Shohoudi A, Crossman A, Talwar V. Learning through observing: Effects of modeling truth-and lie‐telling on children\u0026rsquo;s honesty. Dev Sci. 2020;23(1):e12883. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12883\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/desc.12883\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGugenishvili I, Colliander J. I will only help if others tell me to do so! The simultaneous influence of injunctive and descriptive norms on donations. Voluntary Sect Rev. 2023;14(3):421\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1332/204080521X16442337687557\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1332/204080521X16442337687557\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHouse BR, Tomasello M. Modeling social norms increasingly influences costly sharing in middle childhood. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;171:84\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeyman GD, Ding XP, Fu G, Xu F, Compton BJ, Lee K. Young children selectively hide the truth about sensitive topics. Cogn Sci. 2020;44(3):e12824. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12824\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cogs.12824\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHang H, Davies I, Sch\u0026uuml;ring J. Children\u0026rsquo;s conformity to social norms to eat healthy: A developmental perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2020;244:112666. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112666\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112666\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelferich M, Th\u0026oslash;gersen J, Bergquist M. Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro-environmental behavior. Glob Environ Change. 2023;80:102680. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102680\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102680\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJimenez P, Iyer GS. Tax compliance in a social setting: The influence of social norms, trust in government, and perceived fairness on taxpayer compliance. Adv Acc. 2016;34:17\u0026ndash;26. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.adiac.2016.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLois G, Wessa M. Honest mistake or perhaps not: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms on the magnitude of dishonesty. J Behav Decis Mak. 2021;34(1):20\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/bdm.2196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee K, Talwar V, McCarthy A, Ross I, Evans A, Arruda C. Can classic moral stories promote honesty in children? Psychol Sci. 2014;25(8):1630\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536401\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0956797614536401\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu X, Zhao C, Zhang X, Compton BJ, Sai L, Heyman GD. Messaging about descriptive and injunctive norms can promote honesty in young children. Child Dev. 2022;93(6):e598\u0026ndash;606. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13830\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdev.13830\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMitra A, Shahriar Q. Why is dishonesty difficult to mitigate? The interaction between descriptive norm and monetary incentive. J Econ Psychol. 2020;80:102292. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102292\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.joep.2020.102292\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa F, Heyman GD, Jing C, Fu Y, Compton BJ, Xu F, Lee K. Promoting honesty in young children through observational learning. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018;167:234\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcAuliffe K, Raihani NJ, Dunham Y. Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition. 2017;167:151\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRen M, Zhong B, Fan W. The impact of descriptive and injunctive social norms on pro-environmental behavior: A study using eye-tracking technology. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(45):34761\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06909-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-024-06909-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaihani NJ, McAuliffe K. Dictator game giving: The importance of descriptive versus injunctive norms. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e113826. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113826\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0113826\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmetana JG. Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children\u0026rsquo;s moral and social judgments. In: Killen M, Smetana JG, editors. Handbook of Moral Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. pp. 119\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSai L, Bi Y, Yu C, Ding XP. The power of the lens: Filming increases honesty in children as young as five. J Behav Decis Mak. 2024;37(1):e2351. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/bdm.2351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSai L, Shang S, Zhao C, Liu X, Jiang Y, Compton BJ, Heyman GD. The developmental origins of a default moral response: A shift from honesty to dishonesty. Child Dev. 2022;93(4):1154\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13755\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdev.13755\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSai L, Wang C, Lv Y, Bellucci G. Neurocomputational mechanisms of personal benefits and justifications in moral decision-making. Commun Biology. 2025;8(1):906. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-025-08256-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s42003-025-08256-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharps M, Robinson E. Encouraging children to eat more fruit and vegetables: Health vs. descriptive social norm-based messages. Appetite. 2016;100:18\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.031\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.031\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShalvi S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ayal S. Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24(2):125\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553264\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963721414553264\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuriel E. The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge University Press; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTalwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay RCL. Children\u0026rsquo;s conceptual knowledge of lying and its relation to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence examinations. Law Hum Behav. 2002;26(4):395\u0026ndash;415. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016379104959\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1016379104959\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTalwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay RCL. Children\u0026rsquo;s lie-telling to conceal a parent\u0026rsquo;s transgression: Legal implications. Law Hum Behav. 2004;28(4):411\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039333.51399.f6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039333.51399.f6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTalwar V, Yachison S, Leduc K. Promoting honesty: The influence of stories on children\u0026rsquo;s lie-telling behaviours and moral understanding. Infant Child Dev. 2016;25(6):484\u0026ndash;501. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1949\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/icd.1949\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTalwar V, Yachison S, Leduc K, Nagar PM. Practice makes perfect? The impact of coaching and moral stories on children\u0026rsquo;s lie-telling. Int J Behav Dev. 2018;42(4):416\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417728583\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0165025417728583\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"honesty, children, social norms, descriptive norms, injunctive norms","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to examine whether providing school-aged children with social norm information promotes honest behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren first completed a \u0026ldquo;spin task\u0026rdquo; in which they could lie about their outcomes to obtain material rewards. Next, participants were exposed to either positive descriptive norm information (indicating that most peers report honestly) or injunctive norm information (indicating that most peers believe one should report honestly). Afterwards, they completed the spin task again to assess changes in lying behavior. A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of social norm type on pre- and post-test lying rates as a measure of dishonest behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy 1 showed that 8‑year‑old children in both the positive descriptive and injunctive norm conditions lied at similar levels across pre‑ and post‑tests, whereas those in the control condition lied significantly more in the post‑test than in the pre-test. This suggests that social norm information prevented children from increasing their dishonest behavior. Study 2 found that exposure to a negative descriptive norm (indicating that most peers lie) showed lying rates similar to those in the positive descriptive norm condition, and both groups lied less than children in the control condition. This suggests that the effect of descriptive norm maybe driven by children\u0026rsquo;s concerns to be caught. Study 3 replicated the pattern from Study 1 among 10‑year‑old children, revealing no significant age differences in the effectiveness of norm information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that exposure to peer truth‑telling norms can prevent school‑aged children from increasing dishonest behavior, thereby offering valuable insights into strategies for promoting honesty in children.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Honesty in School-Aged Children","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-13 18:06:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9490123/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T23:13:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"253085253911269816923054051895570714911","date":"2026-05-18T23:08:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"271164230176316684431223004760090084727","date":"2026-05-18T22:01:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"296021509682971390526555707626678844304","date":"2026-05-18T12:39:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"304184554886665659574781538690148129692","date":"2026-05-18T10:29:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T12:09:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258671736158685033453205343495007317419","date":"2026-05-05T12:08:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T11:47:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"116916564394633932796803006081554346629","date":"2026-05-05T11:41:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T11:30:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-25T09:58:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T04:38:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T04:38:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-04-22T02:55:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a852c5ea-d1bb-424a-9959-b95a115bfeb3","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T23:13:18+00:00","index":44,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"253085253911269816923054051895570714911","date":"2026-05-18T23:08:06+00:00","index":43,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"271164230176316684431223004760090084727","date":"2026-05-18T22:01:32+00:00","index":42,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"296021509682971390526555707626678844304","date":"2026-05-18T12:39:04+00:00","index":39,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"304184554886665659574781538690148129692","date":"2026-05-18T10:29:37+00:00","index":38,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T12:09:58+00:00","index":24,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258671736158685033453205343495007317419","date":"2026-05-05T12:08:35+00:00","index":23,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T11:47:35+00:00","index":22,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"116916564394633932796803006081554346629","date":"2026-05-05T11:41:19+00:00","index":20,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"14","date":"2026-05-05T11:30:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-13T18:06:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-13 18:06:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9490123","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9490123","identity":"rs-9490123","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}