Cited by 74Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentDeception detection and forensic psychologyChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Theory of mind, executive function, and lying in children: a meta‐analysis

Sai, Liyang, Shang, Siyuan, Tay, Cleo, Liu, Xingchen, Sheng, Tingwen, Fu, Genyue, Ding, Xiao Pan, Lee, Kang·2021·Developmental Science

Abstract

Scientific research on how children learn to tell lies has existed for more than a century. Earlier studies mainly focused on moral, social, and situational factors contributing to the development of lying. Researchers have only begun to explore the cognitive correlations of children's lying in the last two decades. Cognitive theories suggest that theory of mind (ToM) and executive function (EF) should be closely related to the development of lying since lying is, in essence, ToM and EF in action. Yet, findings from empirical studies are mixed. To address this issue, the current meta‐analysis reviewed all prior literature that examined the relations between children's lying and ToM and/or between children's lying and EF. In total, 47 papers consisting of 5099 participants between 2 and 19 years of age were included, which yielded 74 effect sizes for ToM and 94 effect sizes for EF. Statistically significant but relatively small effects were found between children's lying and ToM ( r = .17) and between lying and EF ( r = .13). Furthermore, EF’s correlation with children's initial lies was significantly smaller than its correlation with children's ability to maintain lies. This comprehensive meta‐analysis provides a clear picture of the associations between children's ToM/EF and their lying behavior and confirms that ToM and EF indeed play a positive role in children's lying and its development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/desc.13096

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Sai, L., Shang, S., Tay, C., Liu, X., Sheng, T., Fu, G., Ding, X. P., & Lee, K.
Affiliations
  • Hangzhou Normal University (CN)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Zhejiang Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Ding, Xiao Pan
  • Lee, Kang
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-12
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
e13096-e13096
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
OpenAlex
W3127897338
Cited by
74
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • National University of Singapore
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1736125, 32071068)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
lying, theory of mind, executive function, children, deception, cognitive development, moral development
MeSH terms
Child, Child Development, Humans, Morals, Executive Function, Theory of Mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review