VU Research Portal

Lying Behavior, Family Functioning and Adjustment in Early Adolescence

Engels, R.C.M.E.; Finkenauer, C.; van Kooten, D.C.

published in
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
2006

DOI (link to publisher)

10.1007/s10964-006-9082-1

document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in VU Research Portal

citation for published version (APA)

Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & van Kooten, D. C. (2006). Lying Behavior, Family Functioning and
Adjustment in Early Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 949-958.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9082-1

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

E-mail address:
[email protected]

Download date: 07. Mar. 2024

J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958
DOI 10.1007/s10964-006-9082-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Lying Behavior, Family Functioning and Adjustment in Early

Adolescence
Rutger C. M. E. Engels · Catrin Finkenauer ·
Dyana C. van Kooten

Received: 1 July 2005 / Accepted: 6 July 2005 / Published online: 25 July 2006


C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract Communication between children and parents has Keywords Adolescents . Lying . Parents .
been the subject of several studies, examining the effects of, Communication . Adjustment
for example, disclosure and secrecy on adolescents’ social
relationships and adjustment. Less attention has paid to ado- Deception is assumed to be related to people’s functioning
lescent deception. We developed and tested a new instru- in social relationships. During early adolescence, youth
ment on lying behavior in a sample of 671 parent-adolescent spend increasing time in activities with peers without the
couples. Analyses on the psychometric properties showed supervision of adults such as parents and teachers. Because
that this instrument had one principal component, and high the social life of the adolescent tends to shift away from
internal consistency, item-total correlations and inter-item the home environment, parents are more dependent on
correlations. Lying was moderately associated with other what their children tell about curfews, where they go to and
indicators of parent-child communication, the quality of the whom they are with (Kerr and Stattin, 2000). Adolescents
parent-child relationship, and with parenting practices. In ad- make certain commitments with their parents and if adoles-
dition, frequent lying was moderately related to behavioral cents lie about these commitments or about these activities,
problems and emotional problems. this can seriously disturb the process of building a trustwor-
thy relationship. Adolescents’ deception may not only affect
the relationship with parents but may also be reflected in the
R. C. M. E. Engels (
)
is a full professor at the Radboud University Nijmegen. He engagement in externalizing problem behaviors, such as ag-
received his Ph.D. in 1998 from the University of Maastricht. His gression, loss of self-control and delinquency (e.g., Gervais
major research interest is the study of social influence processes, et al., 2000; Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). Less is, however,
personality characteristics and development of smoking, drinking known about the relations between lying and internalizing
and drug use in adolescents and young adults. Behavioural
Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, problem behaviors. The aims of the present study are to
P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands examine the associations between lying behavior of adoles-
e-mail: [email protected] cents on the one hand, and the quality of the parent-child
relationship and parenting on the other hand. In addition, we
C. Finkenauer
is an Associate Professor at the Free University of Amsterdam. will focus on the relations between lying and externalizing
She received her Ph.D. in 1998 from the University of Louvain, at and internalizing problem behaviors. We will start by
Louvain-la-Neuve. Her major research interests are interpersonal addressing the concept of lying as well as the development
relationships, social prediction, secrecy and disclosure, and of lying behavior in childhood and adolescence.
affective forecasting for self and others. Free University,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The concept of lying
D. C. van Kooten
is working as a developmental psychologist. She received her MA Lying has been the focus of attention in a few empirical
in 2001 from the University of Leiden. Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands studies. Lee and Ross (1997) explain how young children
define a lie based on the factual truth of the statement. This
means that when a person reveals information that he or she

Springer
950 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958

believes is true, but which in fact is not, a young child will than lying to acquaintances (Backbier et al., 1997). What are
consider this a lie. From adolescence on, however, lying be- the implications for the parent-child relationship? First, it is
comes a more complex concept. During adolescence, lies are expected that children who are raised in warm and respon-
defined based on three semantic elements of lying, namely sive families lie less than children who are raised in cold
(a) the statement is factually false, (b) the speaker believes and ignorant families (see Finkenauer et al., 2002). Further,
that the statement is false, and (c) the speaker intends to the communication between parent and adolescent is likely
deceive the hearer (Lee and Ross, 1997). The definition of a to be negatively affected by adolescent deception. When
lie seems clear when people reach adolescence (e.g., Gervais parents are aware of their offspring lying to them, they might
et al., 2000; Lee and Ross, 1997; Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). reduce the amount of time talking to their children because
Furthermore, occasional lying has been found to start in of the fear of being lied to or simply because they can not
young childhood and is considered to be part of a normal believe what their children tell them anymore. Another
development (e.g., Halpert, 2000). However, excessive and consequence of adolescent lying might be that parent and
consistent lying is seen as a serious child problem behavior child alienate from one another. When there is little trust
by parents, teachers and clinicians (Stouthamer-Loeber, between parents and their child, the child may feel reluctant
1986). DePaulo and Jordan (1982) argue that the earliest lies to tell their parents about important experiences in their
of children are meant to escape punishment. Later in child- lives or lie about them.
hood and during early adolescence more complex patterns of In addition, lying by adolescents can also interfere with
lying become apparent, such as lying to obtain rewards and certain parenting practices, such as monitoring, supervision
altruistic lying to cover up for friends (Stouthamer-Loeber, and having knowledge on adolescent whereabouts. During
1986; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1985). the period of adolescence, parents become more reliant on
Lying may also become more frequent in adolescence, what their children tell them about their doings and where-
because youths spend more time outside the supervision of abouts (Kerr and Stattin, 2000). When children lie about
parents. They are introduced to all sorts of new stimuli in their activities, parents are left in the dark about what their
their surroundings. Disapproval from parents on peer re- children really do and with whom they do it, and it becomes
lations and experimentation with often forbidden activities more difficult for them to act properly upon the activities of
such as alcohol, cigarette smoking and drugs, may represent their offspring.
a context in which adolescents intensify lying about their In sum, it is assumed that frequent lying is associated
behaviors. Gervais et al. (2000) found that the frequency with low quality of the parent-child relationship, distorted
of lying behavior accumulates till the age of seven. Longi- communication between parents and adolescents, and with
tudinal results of their study showed that children at age 7 less adequate parenting.
and 8 lied more frequently than children at age 6. Lee and
Ross (1997) also found significant age differences concern- Lying and developmental outcomes
ing the judgment of what qualifies as a lie. As age increased
the ratings of the participants became more extreme. This Deception may not only be linked to adolescents’ relation-
could mean that the concept of a lie is still developing be- ship with their parents, but also to negative developmental
tween the ages of 12 and 19 years, resulting in adolescents outcomes. Indeed, lying in adolescents has been considered
having a better understanding of lie-telling. It is a question an early indicator of antisocial behavior problems, such as
whether the development of more complex lying is related aggression, delinquency, loss of self-control, and class dis-
to the ways adolescents operate in their social relationships ruptive behavior (Gervais et al., 2000; Stouthamer-Loeber,
like with parents. 1986). These antisocial behavioral problems have been found
to accumulate when lying behavior becomes more persistent.
Lying towards parents In their longitudinal study of a group of 1128 six- to eight-
year olds, Gervais et al. (2000) found that frequent liars
Persistent lying by children can be considered to be such a showed more disruptive behaviors, such as fighting, biting
serious problem that the relationship of trust between the and bullying, than youngsters who are not frequent liars.
child and a parent is compromised. As was previously stated, There may also be a relation between lying and indicators
lying behavior is assumed to be related to the quality of of emotional adjustment, such as low self-esteem, depres-
social relationships according to research on adults: Warm, sion, stress and loneliness. It should, however, be mentioned
intimate and satisfying relationships are related to fewer that there is no empirical research on this relation yet. Still,
lying in that relationship (Kashy and DePaulo, 1996). Other some arguments can be made for the existence of this link.
research focusing on the association between lying and First, adolescents with low self-esteem or depressive feel-
social relationships indicated that lying to people who are ings may try to make themselves look better by lying. In
close to you is considered to be more socially unacceptable addition, one of the reasons why people lie is to protect other

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958 951

people (Kashy and DePaulo, 1996). Adolescents may lie to ing behaviors (e.g., Finkenauer et al., 2005), and expected
their parents about their emotional problems to prevent them differences in lying towards parents (Gervais et al., 2000).
from worrying about them. Finally, adolescents may want to we conducted all analyses for the total sample, as well as for
resolve their emotional problems on their own without any boys and girls separately. However, we did not have specified
help from their parents and therefore lie to them. a priori hypotheses on gender differences in the associations
In conclusion, frequent lying may be related to several between lying on the one hand, and parental behaviors and
forms of adjustment. Lying has been found to be associated problem behaviors on the other.
with more externalizing problem behaviors and difficulties
in social adjustment. The question remains whether lying is Method
also related to emotional problems.
Procedure and sample characteristics
Assessment of lying among adolescents
Two self-report questionnaires were developed; one to ad-
Before we address the main aims of the present study we minister to the children at school and one to administer to
would like to address issues regarding assessment of decep- the parents at home. The study consisted of a sample of
tion by adolescents. One way to assess lying behavior is by 671 parent-adolescent couples. The questionnaires for the
means of self-reports. In the studies of DePaulo et al. (1996) adolescents were administered in winter 2000–2001 in the
and Kashy and DePaulo (1996), respondents were asked to classroom during a normal class hour under supervision of a
report how often they lied and the nature and context of the teacher at six secondary schools in the Netherlands. No ex-
lie. They carried a notebook with them and were encouraged plicit refusals were recorded; non-response was exclusively
to report a lie immediately after it occurred. The use of this due to absence on the day of assessment. Before the ques-
kind of self-reports in assessing lying behavior also brings tionnaires were administered, parents were informed with
about the problem of social desirable answers. Because ly- respect to the aims of the study and could return a form stat-
ing is viewed as a negative behavior, people may not be ing that they did not want their child to participate. Although
completely honest about their own lying behavior. Gervais some parents called our institute for additional information,
et al. (2000) (see also Trembley et al., 1991) have dealt with none of the parents returned this form. The questionnaires
this problem by asking parents and teachers to answer items were filled out in the classrooms in the presence of a teacher.
on adolescent lying. However, they only used one item, from No explicit refusals were recorded; non-response was exclu-
their Social Behavioral Questionnaire, to measure lying. This sively due to absence at the day of assessment.
item does not differentiate in the nature of lies or the social The questionnaires to be filled in by the parents were sent
context in which they are told. To our knowledge, there is to the homes of the adolescents in the winter 2000–2001. A
no instrument that concentrates exclusively on adolescent’s total of 718 parents returned the completed questionnaire by
lying behavior. In this paper, we will examine the psychome- mail. We explicitly requested that only one parent should fill
tric properties of a questionnaire to assess different aspects out the form. In 75% of the cases, the mother filled out the
of adolescent lying behavior towards their parents. Parents questionnaire and in 25% the father.
were asked to fill out this instrument. A total of 1342 parents and adolescents (N = 671 cou-
ples) provided data for analyses. The sample of adolescents
Hypotheses consisted of 356 (53%) boys and 316 (47%) girls. The
mean age was 12.3 (SD = .51), ranging from 10 to 14.
We expect that adolescents who frequently lie to their par- Ninety-one percent lived together with both parents, 6%
ents, as indicated by the parents themselves, also keep more with their mother, 1% with their father, and 2% in other
secrets and disclose less, trust their parents less, and com- settings. All students were in first grade of secondary
municate generally less well than adolescents who do not education with 8% following lower education (‘Vbo’),
frequently lie. Further, we assume that when adolescent lie 37% middle education (‘Mavo/Havo’), and 47% higher
often, parents are less adequate in their parenting skills, so education (‘Havo/Vwo’). Nine percent followed another
they will be less engaged in enforcing control and having type of education (‘Montessori’).
knowledge on their offspring whereabouts. Concerning prob-
lem behaviors, we expect that adolescents who lie frequently Measures
are more involved in internalizing as well as externalizing
problem behaviors. Parent reports
In addition, as there are substantial gender differences in
adolescents’ problem behaviors, e.g., higher involvement of Lying towards parents. To assess adolescents’ lying towards
boys in externalizing behaviors and of girls in internaliz- parents, we developed a new instrument because, to our

Springer
952 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958

Table 1 Structural coefficients

and descriptive statistics for Item PC r M SD
lying scale items
How often do you get the impression that your child:
1. exaggerates the things he/she experiences? .53 .46 2.29 .77
2. lies to you about the things that he/she is engaged in? .74 .67 1.87 .66
3. tells a white lie? .68 .62 2.29 .71
4. is not completely honest with you? .76 .69 2.02 .67
5. conceals things from you that are going on at school (relationship with .67 .59 1.78 .72
teachers, grades)?
6. lies about the reasons why he/she did not meet an agreement with you? .78 .71 1.81 .70
7. pictures things better than they actually are? .70 .64 2.07 .74
8. consciously does not tell you the truth when you have a conversation with .83 .77 1.72 .65
your child?
9. does not tell you important things when you ask him/her something? .76 .69 1.76 .67
Note. n = 671. Scale ranges 10. lies about what he/she does with his/her friends? .77 .70 1.65 .64
from 1 (very often) to 5 (never). 11. only tells you part of the story when you ask him/her something? .75 .69 2.03 .77
PC: loading on principal 12. sometimes does not tell the truth so he/she does not have to hurt .47 .40 2.30 .76
component; r: corrected somebody else’s feelings?
item-total correlation.

knowledge, no scales for adolescents are currently available. lescents’ willingness to disclose personal information to
Information on the reliability and validity of this instrument parents, we adapted the items by asking parents to rate to
will be provided in the result section of this paper (see what extent their children disclose information (e.g., per-
Table 1). The scale consists of 12 items assessing the extent sonal habits, deepest feelings, what they like or dislike about
to which (a) the adolescent explicitly lies about activities themselves) to them. Parents rated the 10 items on 5-point
and actions to his/her parents, (b) tells white lies, and (c) scales (1 = not at all, 2 = a little bit, 3 = somewhat, 4 =
makes stories more interesting or lively by adding incorrect very much, 5 = extremely). The disclosure scale showed a
information (see Table 1). These three aspects of lying satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .90).
were mentioned by DePaulo et al. (1996) as the most Quality of parent-child relationship. Parts of the Inventory
relevant ones concerning the assessment of lying. Response of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden and Green-
categories ranged from 1 = never to 5 = very often. berg, 1987) were used to measure parental attachment. The
Secrecy from parents. To assess secrecy from parents, IPPA consists of three subscales with 4 items each: Com-
we adapted Larson and Chastain’s Self-Concealment Scale munication (e.g., ‘My child always tells me about his/ her
(SCS; Larson and Chastain, 1990). The original SCS con- problems and worries’), Trust (e.g. ‘I respect my child’s feel-
sists of 10 items assessing (a) the tendency to keep things to ings’), and Alienation (e.g., ‘My child often is angry with
oneself, (b) the possession of a secret or negative thoughts me’). Response categories ranged from 1 = never to 6 =
not shared with others, and (c) the apprehension of the reve- always. The alpha for the subscale communication was .62,
lation of concealed personal information. To assess secrecy for trust .66, and for alienation .54.
from parents, we adapted the original items simply by adding Parental knowledge. We assessed parental knowledge by
parents as the target of adolescents’ secrecy and changing the a 6-item scale developed by Brown et al. (1993). Parents
items to fit parents’ reports. The items ‘My secrets are too rated their knowledge about their child’s whereabouts (e.g.,
embarrassing to share with my parents’ and ‘I have negative what their child does during her/ his free time), activities
thoughts about myself that I never share with my parents,’ (e.g., how their child spends her/ his money), and contacts
for example, became ‘My child’s secrets are too embarrass- (e.g., whom their child’s friends are). Items were rated on a
ing to share with me’ and ‘My child has negative thoughts 4-point scale (1 = I know nothing about this issue; 4 = I
about his-/ herself that he/ she would never share with me’, know everything about this issue). Cronbach’s alpha was .83.
respectively. Parents rated all items on 5-point scales (1 = Parental control. Control was measured by a scale of
not at all, 2 = a little bit, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very much, Kerr and Stattin (2000), assessing the extent to which parents
5 = extremely). In our study, the scale had high internal actively control their off-spring’s activities. This 5-item scale
consistency (Cronbach’s α = .79). had responses ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always.
Disclosure towards parents. To assess adolescents’ dis- Examples of items are: ‘If you have been out past curfew, do
closure towards parents, we used an adapted version of the your parents require that you explain why and tell who you
Self-Disclosure Index (SDI, Miller et al., 1983). The SDI were with?’, and ‘Do your parents demand that they know
consists of 10 items assessing general self-disclosure in where you are in the evenings, who you are going to be with,
same-sex relationships. Because we wanted to assess ado- and what you are going to do?’ Cronbach’s alpha was .68.

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958 953

Parental solicitation. To assess parental solicitation, we child is mean to others’ or ‘My child destroys his/ her own
adapted a scale developed by Kerr and Stattin (2000). The properties’. The response categories ranged from 0 to 2 in
scale measures the extent to which parents actively solicit which 0 = does not fit me/ my child at all, 1 = fits me/my
information about and are interested in their child’s activities, child sometimes, 2 = fits me/my child often. Participants
such as how often parents talk to their child’s friends when rated the items on a 3-point scale, ranging from 0 = does
they come to their home or how often they usually ask their not apply to me/my child at all, 1 = sometimes applies to
child to talk about things that happened during her/ his free me/my child, 2 = often applies to me/my child. Internal
time. A total of 5 items were rated on 5-point scales, ranging consistency was .65 for the adolescents’ reports and .68 for
from 1 = never to 5 = always. Cronbach’s alpha was .76. the parents’ reports.
Delinquency. Delinquent behavior was assessed by a scale
Adolescent reports of Houtzager and Baerveldt (1999). This list consists of 14
items assessing the frequency of engagement in petty crime
Self-esteem. Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale measures of non-institutionalized adolescents. Parents and adolescents
adolescents’ perceived self-value or sense of worth compris- answered 14 questions about whether the adolescent had
ing 10 items (e.g., ‘Sometimes I feel that I am completely engaged in certain delinquent behaviors, like shoplifting or
useless’ or ‘In general I am happy with myself’). Responses vandalism, during the past year. The response scale was a
were on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘highly descriptive of 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 4 = 4 times or
me’ to ‘highly undescriptive of me.’ Cronbach’s alpha was more. Internal consistency was .81 for adolescents’ reports
.78. and .54 for parents’ reports.
Loneliness. Loneliness was assessed using the revised Self-control. A Dutch translation of the Self-control scale
UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell et al., 1980), which was developed by Tagney and Baumeister (2000) was employed.
translated into Dutch using a translation-back-translation The self-control scale aims to assess people’s ability to con-
procedure. The scale consists of 10 statements concerning trol their impulses, alter their emotions and thoughts, delay
the extent to which people feel lonely (e.g., I feel left out). gratification, and the like. The scale consists of 11 items.
Adolescents rated the items on 5-point scales, in which 1 = Examples of items are: ‘I am able to resist temptations’ or
not at all true for me, and 5 = very true for me. Cronbach’s ‘I lose my temper quite often.’ Response categories ranged
alpha was .81. from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much. Cronbach’s alpha for
Depressive mood. The Depressive Mood List of Kandel adolescents’ reports as well as parents’ reports was .61. More
and Davies (1982) assesses the extent in which adolescents information on the validity of this instrument is provided by
experience negative mood. Respondents rated how often they Tagney and Baumeister (2000).
experienced negative feelings in the past 12 months such as
‘not having much hope for the future’, ‘feeling nervous and
tensed’ and ‘worrying too much about problems.’ Responses Results
on 6 items were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 =
never to 5 = always. Cronbach’s alpha was .76. The lying scale
Stress. A short form of the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen
et al., 1983) was employed to measure the degree to which First, we will focus on the characteristics of the lying scale,
the adolescent perceived his/her life to be unpredictable, un- filled out by parents. The scale consists of 12 items, which
controllable, or overloaded. A total of 11 items were rated are presented in Table 1. The response categories range from
on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often.’ The 1 to 5, with 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes,
items of the subscale ‘perceived ability to cope’ were re- 4 = often, and 5 = very often.
coded. Thus, higher scores were associated with increased Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The mean
stress. Cronbach’s alpha was .80. scores of the individual items ranged from 1.65 to 2.30 and
standard deviations from .65 to .77. To test the internal con-
Parent and adolescent reports sistency, reliability analyses were conducted. The reliability
coefficient was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Fur-
Aggression. Aggressive behavior was assessed by means of thermore, the corrected item-total correlations ranged from
a subscale from the Dutch version of the Youth Self-Report .40 to .77, with an average of .64. The correlations between
(Achenbach, 1991; Verhulst et al., 1996). The subscale con- the items were also examined. All items were positively in-
sists of 8 items tapping explicit aggressive behavior over terrelated and ranged from .17 to .65, with an average of .45.
the last six months. Item examples are “I fight a lot” or “I So, high levels of internal consistency were indicated by the
destroy other people’s things.” For parents, the same items Cronbach’s alpha, the item-total correlations and the inter-
were used, but were focused on their child, for example ‘My item correlations. Factor analyses on the 12 items indicated

Springer
954 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958

Table 2 Means and standard deviations Table 3 Pearson correlations between lying and the relationship with
parents: Parental reports
Total sample Boys Girls
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Lying
Total sample Boys Girls
Parental reports
Lying 1.97 .49 2.04a,∗∗∗ .49 1.88 .49 Aspects of communication
Secrecy 1.86 .44 1.89 .44 1.83 .44 Secrecy .59∗∗∗ .62∗∗∗ .55∗∗∗
Disclosure 3.82 .58 3.77∗ .57 3.87 .57 Disclosure − .47∗∗∗ − .45∗∗∗ − .46∗∗∗
Communication 4.80 .70 4.77 .69 4.82 .72 Quality of relationship
Trust 5.04 .58 5.01 .59 5.07 .57 Communication − .43∗∗∗ − .46∗∗∗ − .40∗∗∗
Alienation 2.39 .53 2.41 .52 2.38 .54 Trust − .39∗∗∗ − .39∗∗∗ − .39∗∗∗
Knowledge 3.35 .37 3.32∗∗ .36 3.40 .38 Alienation .49∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ .52∗∗∗
Control 4.87 .32 4.86 .31 4.87 .33 Parenting practices
Solicitation 3.88 .49 3.89 .47 3.86 .53 Knowledge − .42∗∗∗ − .32∗∗∗ − .48∗∗∗
Aggression 1.14 .19 1.19∗∗∗ .21 1.09 .15 Control − .09∗ − .07 − .10
Delinquency 1.02 .07 1.04∗∗∗ .09 1.00 .02 Solicitation − .22∗∗∗ − .20∗∗∗ − .26∗∗∗
Self-control 3.38 .46 3.31∗∗∗ .43 3.46 .47
∗
Adolescent’s reports p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Self-esteem 3.16 .49 3.23∗∗∗ .45 3.07 .52
Loneliness 1.61 .50 1.64 .51 1.58 .50 differences were found for loneliness, depressive mood and
Depressive mood 2.32 .65 2.31 .65 2.34 .66 stress.
Stress 2.21 .54 2.20 .53 2.23 .54
Aggression 1.25 .25 1.31∗∗∗ .28 1.19 .19
Correlations between lying and the quality
Delinquency 1.16 .29 1.26∗∗∗ .35 1.07 .17
Self-control 3.39 .53 3.37 .52 3.42 .55 of relationship with parents, other communication
measures, and parenting
a
Additional analyses (t-tests) were conducted to verify whether there
were any significant differences between boys and girls.
∗
The Pearson correlations between lying behavior and aspects
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
of the relationship with parents are shown in Table 3. Fre-
quent lying by adolescents was strongly related to a higher
that there was one principal component. All items loaded on level of secrecy (r = .59, p < .001) and a lower level of dis-
this component with a minimum item loading of .47 and a closure towards parents (r = − .47, p < .001). Furthermore,
maximum item loading of .83 (see also Table 1). In sum, the when sons and daughters lie frequently, there was less com-
lying scale seems to show adequate psychometric properties munication between parents and their children (r = − .43,
although test-retest reliability could not be established. The p < .001), less trust (r = − .39, p < .001), and a higher level
reliability of the scale was high (Cronbach’s alpha is .90) of alienation (r = .49, p < .001). No differences were found
and the individual items deliver a unique contribution to the between boys and girls according to Fisher z-tests.
lying concept. As for parenting practices, high correlations were
found between the level of lying and parental knowledge
Descriptive results (r = − .42, p < .001) and solicitation (r = − .22, p < .001).
These results indicated that the more children lied to their
The means and standard deviations for all variables are pre- parents, the less parents knew; but also that the more chil-
sented in Table 2. We also examined whether boys and girls dren lie, the less parents asked. The association between
differ on these variables. First, parents reported that their sons lying and parental knowledge was significantly stronger for
lied more frequently than their daughters did. Furthermore, girls than for boys (Fisher z test, p < .05). These findings did
they felt that sons were less open compared to daughters. marginally hold for levels of control, here only a moderate
It appeared that parents reported a high quality of the rela- correlation was found (r = − .09, p < .05). The correlations
tionship with their children (M = 5.04 for trust, M = 4.80 for were, however, not significant when we examined boys and
communication, and M = 2.39 for alienation on a six-point girls separately (see Table 3).
scale) and no gender differences were found. Parents indi-
cated that they felt that they knew less about the doings and
whereabouts of boys than girls. In addition, parents rated Correlations between lying and behavioral and
boys to be more aggressive and delinquent, and to have less emotional adjustment
self-control, as compared to girls. Adolescent boys reported
higher levels of self-esteem than adolescent girls did, as well The Pearson correlations between lying behavior and the
as higher levels of aggression and delinquency. No gender adjustment measures are presented in Table 4. All three

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958 955

Table 4 Pearson correlations between lying and emotional and be- pendent variables for the prediction of quality of relationship,
havioural adjustment parenting practices and adolescent problem behaviors.
Lying The results indicated that lying had a significant contribu-
Total sample Boys Girls tion to the quality of the relationship with parents in terms of
communication, trust and alienation, and to parental knowl-
Parent reports
Aggression .42∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗ .38∗∗∗
edge (see Table 5). In addition, lying was independently
Delinquency .19∗∗∗ .20∗∗∗ .13∗ related to the measures of behavioral adjustment, with the ex-
Self-control − .43∗∗∗ − .38∗∗∗ − .42∗∗∗ ception of adolescents’ ratings of self-control. Furthermore,
Adolescent reports lying had a significant contribution to emotional adjustment
Aggression .20∗∗∗ .17∗∗ .18∗∗ concerning levels of depressive mood and stress.
Delinquency .16∗∗∗ .12∗ .16∗∗
Self-control − .09∗ − .13∗ − .04
Self-esteem − .14∗∗∗ − .23∗∗∗ − .12∗
Discussion
Loneliness .12∗∗ .09 .14∗
Depressive mood .15∗∗∗ .17∗∗∗ .13∗
Stress .16∗∗∗ .14∗ .20∗∗∗ The current study was conducted to gain more informa-
tion about lying behavior of adolescents towards their par-
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001. ents, and the relations between lying behavior on the one
hand, and aspects of the parent-child relationship, and be-
measures of behavioral adjustment, aggression (r = .42, havioral and emotional adjustment on the other hand. Cross-
p < .001), delinquency (r = .19, p < .001), and self-control sectional data from 671 parent-child couples were used for
(r = − .43, p < .001) were moderately related to lying. This analyses.
implies that, according to parents, adolescents who lie fre- The psychometric properties of this new instrument on
quently, also show more aggression, are involved in delin- lying showed to be satisfactory. The outcomes indicated that
quent acts more often, and show lower levels of self-control. the scale proved to be highly reliable, with a Cronbach’s
These findings were similar for boys and girls. alpha of .90. There appears to be a single factor underly-
Next, the adolescents’ reports in adjustment measures ing the lying-scale and the individual items deliver a unique
were examined. Adolescents who lied a lot, boys as well contribution to this factor. Furthermore, regression analyses
as girls, also reported more aggressive and delinquent be- showed that, even when controlling for related constructs
havior, and lower levels of self-control. Considering emo- like secrecy and disclosure, lying is still related to most of
tional adjustment, results showed that when adolescents lied the variables considered in the current study. This means that
frequently, they reported lower levels of self-esteem, and the assessment of lying by means of this instrument shows
higher levels of depressive mood and stress. Furthermore, construct validity as well. Nonetheless, some issues remain
when girls lied frequently, they also reported to feel lonelier unresolved. It is relevant to underline that although the in-
(r = 14, p < .05). Additional Fisher z-tests demonstrated no strument consisted of different aspects of lying, such as white
significant differences in associations between boys and girls lies and making stories more interesting by adding informa-
(not in Tables). tion, only one single factor appeared in the factor analyses.
Although the findings in this study are straightforward on
Multivariate hierarchical regression analyses the one factor solution, other studies should verify whether
this one factor solution is stable over samples and perhaps
The Pearson correlations provide insight into the relations cultures. In particular, validation in studies with different age
between lying and the outcome variables. Because of the groups, such as primary school children and middle and late
moderate correlations between lying and secrecy, and lying adolescents, is important. In addition, future studies should
and disclosure, and the resemblances between the concepts concentrate on longitudinal analyses to examine the stabil-
– all three concern communication between adolescent and ity of lying in adolescence and to test the predictive value
parent – it is important to consider to what extent lying con- of lying on outcome measures. Furthermore, to reduce so-
tributed to the outcome variables independent of these other cial desirability, we asked parents to fill out the scale rather
two concepts. In order to examine whether lying uniquely than adolescents themselves. Still, it is important to compare
contributes to the prediction of the quality of the parent- adolescent and parent reports in future studies to replicate
child relationship, parenting, and adjustment, analyses were whether similar psychometric properties show up and to ex-
conducted with the communication measures secrecy and amine whether parents are able to accurately estimate the
disclosure towards parents as control variables. To address frequency of lying.
this issue multivariate regression analyses were conducted in The current study evaluated the associations between ly-
which lying, disclosure and secrecy were included as inde- ing towards parents on the one hand, and the quality of

Springer
956 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958

Table 5 Regression of
secrecy, disclosure and lying on Lying Secrecy Disclosure r2
adjustment and relationship with
Behavioral adjustment
parents: Beta weights
Aggression (parent ratings) .38∗∗∗ .11∗ .06 .18
Aggression (adolescent ratings) .19∗∗∗ .03 .01 .04
Delinquency (parent ratings) .14∗∗ .04 − .07 .04
Delinquency (adolescent ratings) .16∗∗∗ .03 .04 .16
Self-control (parent ratings) − .37∗∗∗ − .15∗∗ − .08 .19
Self-control (adolescent ratings) − .03 − .18∗∗ − .08 .03
Note. The outcomes Emotional adjustment
(standardized parameters and Self-esteem − .06 − .15∗∗ − .02 .03
explained variances) of 16 Loneliness .06 .06 − .06 .02
multivariate regression analyses Depressive mood .10∗ .18∗∗∗ .14∗∗ .04
are presented. For instance, in Stress .13∗∗ .10 .06 .03
the first described analyses, Relationship with parents
lying, secrecy and disclosure are Communication − .16∗∗∗ − .06 .51∗∗∗ .41
included in the equation as Trust − .15∗∗∗ − .14∗∗ .34∗∗∗ .29
predictors of aggression rated by
Alienation .30∗∗∗ .15∗∗∗ − .22∗∗∗ .31
parents. The variance explained
by the three predictors are Knowledge − .22∗∗∗ − .17∗∗∗ .22∗∗∗ .26
depicted in the last row. Control − .01 − .07 .07 .02
∗ Solicitation .04 − .07 .45∗∗∗ .23
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

parent-child relationship and parenting on the other hand. their parents are more likely to have emotional problems
The results show that children who frequently lie to their such as low self-esteem, stress and depression.
parents show less disclosure, higher levels of secrecy, poorer Most of the associations between lying and outcome vari-
communication patterns, less trust between the parents and ables remained significant and substantial after controlling
their child, and more alienation. The associations between for the other parent-child communication measures. This un-
lying and specific parenting practices were also considered. derscores the strength and additional value of the concept of
These results indicated that frequent lying is related to less lying in the relationships with other family characteristics
knowledge, less control and less solicitation (see also Kerr and adolescent adjustment. However, when we considered
and Stattin, 2000; Stattin and Kerr, 2000). This underscores the relations between lying on the one hand, and self-control,
the importance of lying in not only the way parents and self-esteem and loneliness on the other hand, it appeared that
children interact with each other but also the opportunities these relations do not remain significant when we enclose se-
parents have to raise their children adequately. Furthermore, crecy and disclosure in the analyses. This means that secrecy
the regression analyses in which we looked at the additional and disclosure explain the better part of the variance in self-
value of lying controlling for the effects of other parent-child control, self-esteem and loneliness.
communication measures disclosure and secrecy, also under-
scored the strength of the concept of lying in the quality of Causality
the parent-child relationship. Nonetheless, concerning the
parenting practices examined here, the analyses showed that However, the question remains whether the adjustment prob-
lying is only related to knowledge. The relations between lems are the outcome of a higher frequency of lying, or
lying on the one hand, and control and solicitation on the whether the higher frequency of lying is the result of more
other hand, do not remain significant after controlling for adjustment problems. For instance, in the first case, one could
secrecy and disclosure. imagine that lying can be an early form of behavioral prob-
Our results indicated that lying was related to all lems. These problems can start small with an ‘innocent’ lie,
measurements of behavioral and emotional adjustment and then evolve into more serious problems, like delinquency
assessed in the current study. This means that adolescents and aggression. Lying behavior can also be part of the onset
who often lie to their parents also show more behavioral of emotional problems. When their child lies to parents over
problems, as well as emotional problems. Concerning and over again, this could result in the parents not interacting
behavioral adjustment, our results strongly coincide with with their child anymore. By doing so, the lying adolescent
studies of Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) and Gervais et al. may create a climate in which he or she feels lonely and
(2000). The moderate associations between lying and abandoned by his or her parents. Being separated from the
emotional adjustment are the first empirical evidence for the family may also lead to low levels of self-esteem, an increase
hypothesis that young people who lie frequently towards of depressive mood, and high levels of stress. On the other

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958 957

hand, behavioral or emotional problems may be the cause of that these distinctive aspects are also differentially related to
lying behavior. Deception may be used to cover up some be- social interactions and problem behaviors. Therefore, future
havioral or emotional problems. For instance, a delinquent studies need to focus on gender and deception in various age
adolescent may lie about his or her whereabouts to avoid groups.
punishment for doing something he or she should not have At a young age, lying is one of the criteria for the diag-
done, like stealing something from a store. Lying could also noses of a conduct disorder. A conduct disorder constitutes
be used to cover up emotional problems. Adolescents may a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the
lie about their feelings of loneliness or depression because basic rights of others or major age-appropriate social norms
they do not want their parents to worry or get involved in or rules are violated. Four categories of behavior are charac-
what they see as their own problems. To be able to test these teristic for a conduct disorder, namely: aggression towards
speculations about the causes in the relations between ly- people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness
ing and adjustment, longitudinal research is necessary, in or theft, or serious violation of rules (American Psychiatric
which reciprocal associations between lying and adjustment Association: DSM IV, 1994). In older adolescents, eighteen
are examined. years of age at least, persistent lying is a criterium for the
diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder, which is de-
When is lying beneficial? fined as a continuation of a conduct disorder earlier in life.
Although we do not suggest that our lying measure opens the
In general, we found negative effects of lying towards par- possibility to detect people with a conduct disorder, still it is
ents on adolescent’s social life and adjustment. Still, some possible that adolescents who score high on our lying mea-
kind of lies such as white lies may, if used properly, be a sure actually suffer from this disorder or are risk-prone to
social skill that enhances people’s competence in social rela- develop it. Future research should compare a lying measure
tionships. In addition, one may also expect that hiding things with the DSM IV criteria for conduct disorder.
from parents provide the opportunity to gain autonomy and
relinquish of the dependence on parents (Allen et al., 1994). Shortcomings of the present study
Feldman et al. (1999) examined the relations between social
competence and deception in adolescents. They showed that The current study was subject to some limitations. First, the
respondents with higher levels of social competence were cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for any ref-
better at deceiving others than the low social competence erences to be made about the causal order of the variables.
group. Additionally, there was also an interaction with age, Future research would be able to draw such conclusions when
indicating that older adolescents are better at deception. Our using a longitudinal design. Furthermore, another issue to be
findings, however, indicate that adolescents who lie to hide addressed with respect to the methodology is which person
things from their parents are also telling more white lies is the best source to provide information about lying. In the
and also we could found no positive effects of lying in any present study, parents were asked to reflect their child’s ly-
of the analyses, even if we looked in additional analyses at ing behavior. It can be argued that not all parents are able to
specifically the items measuring white lies. correctly identify their children’s lying behavior, and conse-
quently overestimate or underestimate this behavior. Future
Gender differences research could compensate for this limitation by assessing
lying not only from the parent but also from the adolescents
Earlier research provided contradictory findings concerning themselves. On the other hand, the fact that we found similar
gender differences in lying behavior. On a descriptive level, findings on behavioral adjustment of parental and adolescent
it is quite clear that boys lie more often than girls (see also reports underlines the strength of our findings. In addition,
On an explanatory level, however, it appeared that almost the current study focuses on lying behavior towards parents.
none of the associations between lying and outcome mea- It may also be interesting to consider lying behavior in gen-
sures differed for boys and girls. In addition, DePaulo et al. eral and the relations between differences in lying behavior
(1996) did not find any significant sex differences in the fre- towards various persons, such as teachers, friends, siblings
quency of telling lies in a study among young adults. They and parents.
did, however, find a gender difference when considering the
nature of the lies. It seemed that young woman lie more often Conclusion
to spare other people’s feelings than young men do. Appar-
ently, other people’s feelings are more important to young The present study is one of the first that examined the role
woman than telling the truth, whereas young men tend to of adolescent lying behavior towards parents in the quality
tell more self-centered lies. So, it is still possible that differ- of parent-child relationship, and in emotional and behavioral
ent aspects of lying are apparent in an older age group, and problems of adolescents. Preliminary evidence suggest that

Springer
958 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:949–958

the instrument we developed may be relevant in research Finkenauer C, Engels RCME, Baumeister RW (2005) Parenting and
on parent-child communication, and that lying behavior in adolescent externalizing and internalizing problems: The role of
self-control. Int J Behav Dev 29:58–69
adolescence might be a precursor of emotional and behavior Finkenauer C, Engels RCME, Meeus W (2002) Keeping secrets from
problems later on. parents: Advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence.
J Youth Adolesc 31:123–136
Acknowledgements Rutger Engels was supported by a fellowship Gervais J, Tremblay RE, Desmarais-Gervais L, Vitaro F (2000) Chil-
of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research during the prepara- dren’s persistent lying, gender differences, and disruptive be-
tion of this manuscript. We would like to acknowledge a grant of the haviours: A longitudinal perspective. Int J Behav Dev 24:213–221
Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, for Halpert E (2000) On lying and the lie of a toddler. Psychoanal Q
conducting the study. 69:659–675
Houtzager B, Baerveldt C (1999) Just like normal: A social network
study of the relation between petty crime and the intimacy of
References adolescent friendships. Soc Behav Pers 27:177–192
Kashy DA, DePaulo BM (1996) Who lies? J Pers Soc Psychol 70:1037–
Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 pro- 1051
file. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, Burlington Kerr M, Stattin H (2000) What parents know, how they know it, and
Allen JP, Hauser ST, Bell KL, O’Connor TG (1994) Longitudinal as- several forms of adolescent adjustment. Dev Psychol 36:366–380
sessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family in- Larson DG, Chastain RL (1990) Self-concealment: Conceptualization,
teractions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self- measurement, and health implications. J Soc Clin Psychol 9:439–
esteem. Child Dev 65:179–194 455
Armsden GC, Greenberg MT (1987) The Inventory of Parent and Peer Lee K, Ross HJ (1997) The concept of lying in adolescents and young
Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psy- adults: Testing Sweetser’s folkloristic model. Merrill-Palmer Q
chological well-being in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc 16:427– 43:255–270
454 Miller LC, Berg JH, Archer RL (1983) Openers: Individuals who elicit
Backbier E, Hoogstraten J, Meerum Terwogt-Kouwenhoven K (1997) intimate self-disclosure. J Pers Soc Psychol 44:1234–1244
Situational determinants of the acceptability of telling lies. J Appl Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton
Soc Psychol 27:1048–1062 University Press, Princeton, NJ
Botvin GJ, Botvin EM (1992) Adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug Russell D, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE (1980) The revised UCLA Loneli-
abuse: Prevention strategies, empirical findings, and assessment ness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers
issues. J Dev Behav Pediatr 13:290–301 Soc Psychol 39:472–480
Brown BB, Mounts NS, Lamborn SD, Steinberg L (1993) Parenting Stattin H, Kerr M (2000) Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child
practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Dev Dev 1:1072–1085
64:467–482 Stouthamer-Loeber M (1986) Lying as a problem behavior in children:
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of A review. Clin Psychol Rev 6:267–289
perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24:385–396 Tagney JP, Baumeister RF (2000) High self-control predicts good ad-
DePaulo BM, Kashy DA, Kirkendol SE, Wyer MM, Epstein JA (1996) justment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Lying in everyday life. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:979–995 Manuscript submitted for publication. George Mason University
Feldman RS, Tomasian JC, Coats EJ (1999) Nonverbal deception Verhulst FC, van der Ende J, Koot HM (1996) Handleiding voor
abilities and adolescents’ social competence: Adolescents with de Youth Self-Report (YSR). Rotterdam: Erasmus Univer-
higher social skills are better liars. J Nonverbal Behav 23:237– siteit/Sophia Kinderziekenhuis, Afdeling Kinder-en Jeugdpsychi-
249 atrie

Springer