Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception

Minson, Julia A.; VanEpps, Eric M.; Yip, Jeremy A.; Schweitzer, Maurice E.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.006

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies 1-5 demonstrate that targets find it insulting when communicators hide their success in response to a direct question or explicit request for information. However, sharing is normative in response to a direct question (Minson et al, 2018). Thus, hiding success in response to a direct question clearly violates conversation norms.…”

Section: Hiding Success 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, we predict that the strength of these inferences depends on the degree to which hiding success violates a salient norm of communication within the given conversational context. Specifically, when sharing is normative, for example, in response to a direct question (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999;Minson, VanEpps, Yip, & Schweitzer, 2018), then hiding success is more likely to lead the target to search for an explanation for the communicator's surprising behavior. Without violating conversational norms, choosing not to share a success may be perceived to be motivated by modesty rather than paternalistic motives, and in these cases, hiding success may be viewed more favorably than sharing success (O'Mara, Kunz, Receveur, & Corbin, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hiding Success

Roberts¹,

Levine²,

Sezer³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-promotion is common in everyday life. Yet, across seven studies (N = 1,672) examining a broad range of personal and professional successes, we find that individuals often hide their successes from others and that such hiding has harmful relational consequences. We document these effects among close relational partners, strangers, and within hypothetical relationships. In Study 1, we find that targets feel less close to and more insulted by communicators who hide rather than share their successes. Conversely, sharing success increases closeness, despite also triggering envy. In Study 2, we find that hiding is more costly than sharing success, even when the target does not learn about the act of hiding. That is, hiding success harms relationships both when the success is eventually discovered and when it is not. In Studies 3 and 4, we explore the mechanism underlying these interpersonal costs: Targets infer that communicators have paternalistic motives when they hide their success, which leads them to feel insulted. Studies 5 and 6 explore this mechanism in greater detail by documenting the contextual cues that elicit inferences of paternalistic motives. While a large body of existing research highlights the negative consequences of sharing one’s accomplishments with others, our research demonstrates that sharing is often superior to hiding. In doing so, we shed new light on the consequences of paternalism and the relational costs of hiding information in everyday communication.

show abstract

Section: Hiding Success 42mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiding Success

Roberts¹,

Levine²,

Sezer³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other scholars (e.g., Minson, VanEpps, Yip, & Schweitzer, 2018) have studied strategies for eliciting unfavorable information in negotiations. We found that first-offer values could elicit such disclosures through increased trust—an unpredicted effect that offers negotiators a novel and subtle strategy for gaining potentially valuable information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Generous Offers I Trust: The Effect of First-Offer Value on Economically Vulnerable Behaviors

Jeong

Gino

2020

Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiation scholarship espouses the importance of opening a bargaining situation with an aggressive offer, given the power of first offers to shape concessionary behavior and outcomes. In our research, we identified a surprising consequence to this common prescription. Through four studies in the field and laboratory (total N = 3,742), we explored how first-offer values affect the recipient’s perceptions of the offer-maker’s trustworthiness and, subsequently, the recipient’s behaviors. Specifically, we found that recipients of generous offers are more likely to make themselves economically vulnerable to their counterparts, exhibiting behaviors with potentially deleterious consequences, such as disclosing negative information. We observed this effect in an online marketplace (Study 1) and in an incentivized laboratory experiment (Study 3). We found that it is driven by the greater trust that generous first offers engender (Studies 2 and 3). These results persisted in the face of debiasing attempts and were surprising to lay negotiators (Studies 3 and 4).

show abstract

“…Consequently, analysts have incentives to acquire or at least validate their information during conference calls to increase their absolute forecast accuracy. In particular, by sharing information in their questions managers more likely provide more (less biased) information (in line with Minson et al, 2018;Haag et al, 2021). 3 Conference calls are organized as a two-staged disclosure process.…”

Section: Information Provision During Earnings Conference Callsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…In particular, analysts trade off the benefits and cost of revealing information via their questions. In the negotiation context, Minson et al (2018) provide experimental evidence that the questioner can increase the quality of information provided by the respondent by revealing information in the question. Consequently, analysts may increase the quality of management-provided information by revealing information in their questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%