New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Older Kids Are More Likely to Confess to Bad Deeds

Children first learn to cover for their naughty behavior, but learn to take responsibility as they get older 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Parents of toddlers know the routine: You catch your child red-handed and sticky-fingered—the evidence of a candy raid literally written on his or her face. But instead of a confession, you get a wide-eyed denial: “I didn't do it!”

Learning to tell the truth, even at the risk of punishment, is an important part of moral development, and new evidence suggests it can take seven or more years for kids to get there.

For a study published in 2017 in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, University of Michigan developmental psychologist Craig E. Smith and his colleagues recruited 48 children between four and nine years of age. They told the kids a story about a boy or girl doing something wrong, such as taking a classmate's toy or candy, and then either lying about the misdeed to a parent or confessing it. In each case, they asked the children, How would the child feel? How would the mother feel?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The children's answers were generally distributed according to age, which is in line with previous research showing a gradual growth of moral understanding and emotional complexity in early childhood. More of the four- to five-year-olds reported thinking the child in the story would feel better keeping the stolen candy, lying and escaping punishment. They imagined the parent in the study would be angry with the child who confessed. In contrast, the seven- to nine-year-olds were more likely to think the child would feel better owning up to the crime and that the parent would have positive feelings toward a confessor.

Moreover, the results of the storytelling exercise matched real-life behavior. Parents reported that regardless of age, children in the study who associated positive emotions with confessing in the story had a better history of honesty about their own transgressions.

This study dovetails nicely with past research, says developmental psychologist Angela Evans of Brock University in Ontario, whose own work suggests that children's literature can help shape moral development. In 2014 she and her colleagues found that children who were told classic stories about honesty, such as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, in which he is praised for admitting he cut it down, were more likely to confess to ignoring researcher instructions than the children who heard stories in which bad things happened to kids who lie, as in Pinocchio or “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

What parents can learn from these studies, Smith says, is to listen calmly when their child confesses rather than expressing anger. Reward the honesty even if you feel you must punish the offense. Evans adds, “Both these studies support the idea that parents need to show the positive aspects of confession because focusing on the negative consequences of lying does not improve behavior.”

Francine Russo is a veteran journalist specializing in social sciences and relationships. She is author of Love after 50: How to Find It, Enjoy It, and Keep It (Simon and Schuster, 2021).

More by Francine Russo
SA Mind Vol 28 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?” in SA Mind Vol. 28 No. 3 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0517-16a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe