title: “If I Had to Pick One Age When Kids Become Liars: Four” date: 2026-01-12 description: “A numbers-first argument that the biggest developmental switch into deliberate deception happens around age 4.” tags: [“psychology”, “child-development”, “lying”, “theory-of-mind”]
Thesis: If you force me to pick a single “switch” age when lying becomes a stable, intentional tool (not just noise, mistakes, or wishful answering), I pick 4 years old.
That sentence sounds like a moral diagnosis. It isn’t.
This post is about a cognitive milestone: the moment children start treating your mind as something separate from their mind—a private “universe” with its own contents that can be influenced, misled, and sometimes exploited.
A child who can lie is not automatically “bad.” A child who cannot lie is not automatically “good.” Lying is better understood as a social-technology that becomes possible once two pieces of machinery start working together:
- Theory of mind (ToM): tracking what someone else believes (even when it’s wrong).
- Executive function (EF): inhibiting the truth, holding the story in working memory, and controlling “leakage.”
The hard part is that neither of these develops overnight. So why pick four?
Because around 4, multiple research lines converge on the same practical claim:
- children’s explicit false-belief understanding becomes reliable,
- self-protective lies in classic lab paradigms become common, and
- the ability to tell a lie and then keep it coherent begins to show up as an individual difference tied to ToM and EF.
Below is the evidence that makes “four” the best single-number answer—even though reality is continuous.
What counts as “lying” here (and what doesn’t)
A big chunk of confusion comes from calling everything untrue a “lie.”
In developmental psychology, lying is usually defined as intentional verbal deception—not mistakes, misunderstandings, fantasy play, or random “yes” answers.
One widely cited definition puts it bluntly:
“Lying involves a speaker making a false statement with the intention to deceive the recepient.” — Talwar & Lee (open-access full text on PMC)
So, “I didn’t break it” while holding the broken thing is a lie. “I have a dragon in my bedroom” (while playing) is not necessarily a lie. And “No” to every question isn’t lying; it’s often just response bias, fear, or confusion.
Why minds matter: the “other universe” problem
Your question gestures at the key idea: at some point, a child realizes the other person has their own inner world.
To lie successfully, the child has to model:
- what really happened, and
- what you currently believe, and
- what you will believe after hearing their statement.
That’s why false-belief understanding has been the workhorse test for ToM. And when researchers argue about “when ToM emerges,” they often argue about when children reliably pass false-belief tasks.
A classic meta-analysis pulled together the messy literature:
“A meta-analysis was conducted (N = 178 separate studies) to address the empirical inconsistencies and theoretical controversies.” — Wellman, Cross, & Watson (2001)
and found that performance shows a consistent developmental pattern:
“yielded a multiple R of .74 and an R2 of .55; thus, the model accounts for 55% of the variance” — Wellman, Cross, & Watson (2001)
You don’t have to treat false-belief tasks as perfect to accept the big message: preschoolers move from systematically failing these tasks to reliably passing them. That shift is exactly the kind of “other universe” upgrade that makes strategic lying possible.
The temptation-resistance paradigm: the lab’s “lying trap”
Most of the cleanest child-lying data comes from a deceptively simple setup:
- Tell the child don’t peek at a toy while you leave.
- Leave them alone (many peek).
- Ask: “Did you peek?”
- Optionally ask follow-ups that test whether they can maintain the lie (avoid “semantic leakage”).
It’s called the temptation resistance paradigm (TRP).
In one open-access study of 150 children aged 3–8:
“Overall, 82% of the children (123) peeked at the toy in the experimenter’s absence” — Talwar & Lee
and among the peekers:
“Of the 123 children who peeked, 79 (64%) children lied about their transgression.” — Talwar & Lee
That’s already a key point: lying is common once the situation pressures self-protection.
But it still doesn’t tell us the switch age. For that we look at the developmental model inside the same paper.
The reason I pick four: “secondary lies” start winning
Talwar & Lee summarize a developmental progression often described in levels.
What matters here is their claim about an inflection between 3 and 4:
“The second level, ‘secondary lies’, reflects a significant shift that takes place between 3 and 4 years of age.” — Talwar & Lee
And they make the practical statement you were asking for:
“At and after 4 years of age, the majority of children will readily tell a lie to conceal their own transgression.” — Talwar & Lee
That sentence is why “four” is the best single-number answer.
Not because every 4-year-old lies all the time. But because before 4, lying exists—yet it’s less reliable, less strategic, and more vulnerable to “leakage.” After 4, lying to conceal a misdeed becomes the modal response in these paradigms.
Why not pick 2.5? Because early “lies” look different
Parents often report “first lies” around toddlerhood. Experiments see something related—but the pattern suggests it’s not yet full-strength, belief-manipulating deception.
A large longitudinal study (N=252) tested 2.5-year-olds in a modified TRP and found:
“Results showed that 35% of 2.5-year-olds peeked, 27% of peekers lied and 40% of non-peekers falsely confessed they had peeked.” — Białecka-Pikul et al. (2022)
Notice how weird that is: 40% false confessions among non-peekers. That’s not a mature deception profile. It looks like a mix of compliance, confusion, or poor inhibitory control.
The authors’ interpretation is directly relevant:
“These results suggested that the first, or so-called primary, lies of 2.5-year-olds are probably spontaneous, rather than deliberate.” — Białecka-Pikul et al. (2022)
So if you pick 2.5, you risk calling “noise” a “switch.”
Why not pick 7–8? Because that’s about skill, not onset
There’s a different milestone later: the ability to keep the lie consistent under follow-up questioning.
Talwar & Lee note that lie maintenance relates to higher-order belief understanding (thinking about what someone thinks about someone else’s beliefs). In other words: sophistication keeps developing.
But if your goal is the first age where lying becomes a common, deliberate concealment strategy, you don’t need to wait for 7–8. Four is earlier and captures the onset of secondary lies.
The “software update” view: ToM + EF predicts lying, but not strongly
If lying were only theory-of-mind, we’d expect huge correlations. We don’t see that.
What we see are small-but-consistent associations across thousands of children—exactly what you’d expect if ToM is necessary but not sufficient.
A meta-analysis of lying and ToM (81 studies; 7,826 children) reports:
“81 studies involving 7,826 children between 2 and 14 years of age” — Lee & Imuta (2021)
and:
“there was a small, significant positive association (r = .23).” — Lee & Imuta (2021)
and importantly, the link is strongest where you’d expect ToM to matter most:
“ToM was positively related to all facets of lying, but most strongly linked to lie maintenance” — Lee & Imuta (2021)
A second meta-analysis that also includes executive function (47 papers; 5,099 participants) finds:
“In total, 47 papers consisting of 5099 participants between 2 and 19 years of age were included” — Sai et al. (2021)
and:
“Statistically significant but relatively small effects were found between children’s lying and ToM (r = .17) and between lying and EF (r = .13).” — Sai et al. (2021)
Plus a nuance that supports the “skill vs onset” distinction:
“EF’s correlation with children’s initial lies was significantly smaller than its correlation with children’s ability to maintain lies.” — Sai et al. (2021)
So: around 4, the machinery is coming online. After that, children differ in how good they are—especially at maintaining a lie.
“Does it stay?” Short-term stability shows up fast
Even if lying “begins” around preschool, you asked something deeper: when does it become a stable behavior rather than a one-off?
A short-term longitudinal paper (open access) tested 104 preschoolers three times across 4-month intervals:
“we tested 104 normally developing children’s (64 boys, M = 54.0 months) false belief understanding and lie-telling behaviors three times at 4-month intervals.” — Wang, Gao, & Shao (2024)
They report:
“Lie-telling behaviors exhibited moderate stability across the three time points” — Wang, Gao, & Shao (2024)
And critically for the “other universe” theory, the direction of prediction runs from ToM to lying, not the other way:
“Earlier false belief understanding significantly predicted children’s later lie-telling behavior” “earlier lie-telling did not predict later false beliefs understanding.” — Wang, Gao, & Shao (2024)
If you want “when it stays,” that kind of stability is the closest thing we have to a quantitative answer: once the behavior is common (post-4), it can already show measurable stability over months.
Lying doesn’t disappear in adulthood—but it becomes unevenly distributed
If you follow lying into adult life, the story becomes less “everyone lies constantly” and more “most people lie rarely; a few people lie a lot.”
A classic diary-study report:
“77 college students reported telling 2 lies a day, and 70 community members told 1.” — DePaulo et al. (1996)
And a large UK survey paper (N=2,980) summarizes the modern “long tail” view:
“most people are honest most of the time and the majority of lies are told by a few prolific liars.” — Serota & Levine (2014)
They also state the sample clearly:
“Participants (N = 2,980) were surveyed in the United Kingdom” — Serota & Levine (2014)
So yes: lying “stays” as a human behavior. But it doesn’t stay as a constant rate for everyone.
So: if I must choose one age, I choose 4 years old
Here’s the clean argument.
1) Before 4, deception exists but often looks like “primary” behavior
Toddlers show denial, compliance errors, and false confessions in ways that suggest limited deliberate belief-manipulation (e.g., 2.5-year-olds: 27% of peekers lied; 40% of non-peekers falsely confessed).
2) Around 4, deliberate concealment lies become the dominant
response in classic paradigms Talwar & Lee explicitly describe a shift between 3 and 4 and state that at and after 4, the majority readily lie to conceal a transgression.
3) Around 4, “other minds” become tractable objects
False-belief performance shows a preschool conceptual change in a large meta-analysis; meta-analyses show ToM is reliably (if modestly) associated with lying, especially lie maintenance.
4) After 4, context and incentives can swing honesty dramatically
In 4–8-year-olds, changing appeals and punishment expectations moves lying rates from ~46% to ~87% in one dataset—meaning the behavior is now a strategic response, not just developmental noise.
5) After 4, you can already detect stability over time
Short-term longitudinal evidence finds moderate stability in lie-telling across multiple time points and shows ToM predicts later lying.
If you want a single age that best captures “the switch from truth-by-default to truth-as-a-strategy”, it’s four.
CSV: key studies behind the “age 4” claim
Copy/paste this as a .csv file.
Study,Year,Design,N,Age range,Paradigm / Measures,Key quantitative
findings,Open link
Wellman Cross Watson,"2001",Meta-analysis,"178 studies
(meta)",Preschool focus,False-belief tasks,"Model multiple R=.74;
R2=.55; consistent developmental shift in false-belief
performance",https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11405571/
Talwar Lee,"2008",Cross-sectional,"150",3–8 years,TRP + ToM + EF +
moral eval,"82% peeked; of peekers 64% lied; ToM/EF relate to initial
lie vs maintenance; 'shift between 3 and 4'
described",https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3483871/
Talwar Arruda Yachison,"2015",Experiment,"372",4–8 years,TRP with
appeals + punishment,"No-appeal 87.1% lied vs External 46.4% vs
Internal 65.9%; punishment × internal appeal: 86% lied vs
45%",https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Talwar_et_al_2015_The_effects_of_punishment_and_appeals_for_honesty_on_children%E2%80%99s_truth-telling_behavior.pdf
Białecka-Pikul et al.,"2022",Longitudinal,"252",2.5 years (IC at
1.5/2/2.5),Modified TRP + inhibitory control,"35% peeked; 27% of
peekers lied; 40% of non-peekers falsely confessed; authors suggest
'primary' lies often
spontaneous",https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278099
Lee Imuta,"2021",Meta-analysis,"81 studies; 7,826 children",2–14
years,Lying facets × ToM,"Overall r=.23; ToM strongest for lie
maintenance, weakest for spontaneous
production",https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33462865/
Sai et al.,"2021",Meta-analysis,"47 papers; 5,099 participants",2–19
years,Lying × ToM × EF,"ToM r=.17; EF r=.13; EF stronger for lie
maintenance than initial
lies",https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33544950/
Wang Gao Shao,"2024",Short-term longitudinal,"104",~46–64 months
(M=54),Cross-lagged ToM ↔ lying,"Lie-telling stability (β=.526 T1→T2;
β=.337 T2→T3); ToM predicts later lying (β≈.24–.26); lying does not
predict later ToM",https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstreams/129fd5cb-7464-4182-bd73-77de1b4ce386/download
DePaulo et al.,"1996",Diary studies,"77 + 70",Adults,Daily lie
diaries,"77 students ~2 lies/day; 70 community ~1
lie/day",https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8656340/
Serota Levine,"2014",Survey,"2,980",Adults,Self-reported daily lying
prevalence,"Most people honest most of the time; majority of lies from
a few 'prolific
liars'",https://www.oakland.edu/Assets/upload/docs/News/2014/Serota-Levine-Prolific-Liars-2014.pdf
---
*Post created via email from emin@nuri.com*