Gender differences in lying

Childs, Jason

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.006

Cited by 122 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Particularly emblematic is the case of altruistic white lies (lies that benefit another person at the expenses of the liar): an earlier work by Erat and Gneezy (2012) found that women are more likely than men to tell altruistic white lies, whereas a more recent work by Biziou-van-Pol et al (2015) found the opposite: men are more likely than women to tell altruistic white lies. A similar inconclusiveness is present also in the case of black lies (lies that benefit the liar at the expenses of another person): an earlier work by Dreber & Johannesson (2008) showed that men are more likely than women to tell black lies, whereas a subsequent work by Childs (2012) found no gender differences in the decision to tell a black lie. A recent meta-analysis of more than 32,000 observations reports that males are more likely than females to lie (Abeler, Nosenzo & Raymond, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Previous studies have led to mixed results with regard to the effect of gender (Abeler, Nosenzo & Raymond, 2016;Biziou-van-Pol et al, 2015;Cappelen et al, 2013;Childs, 2012;Dreber & Johannesson, 2008;Friesen & Gangadharan, 2012;Erat & Gneezy, 2012). Particularly emblematic is the case of altruistic white lies (lies that benefit another person at the expenses of the liar): an earlier work by Erat and Gneezy (2012) found that women are more likely than men to tell altruistic white lies, whereas a more recent work by Biziou-van-Pol et al (2015) found the opposite: men are more likely than women to tell altruistic white lies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Capraro¹

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Capraro¹

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 This is shown in the lab (e.g., Erat and Gneezy, 2012;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2014;Kocher et al, 2016) 2 and in the field (Azar et al, 2013;Bucciol et al, 2013). Although, the literature predominately finds that men cheat significantly more, some studies find no gender differences (e.g., Childs, 2012;Djawadi and Fahr, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Grosch

Rau

2017

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may University of Mannheim, University of Göttingen March 2017Abstract This paper experimentally analyzes the determinants of the honesty norm in a lying game. The findings confirm common gender differences, i.e., men cheat significantly more than women. We detect a novel correlation between subjects' magnitude of concern they have for others (social value orientation) and their moral valuation of the norm honesty. The data suggest that individualistic subjects are less honest than prosocial ones. Interestingly, this difference can explain the gender differences we observe. First, we find that the distribution of social value orientation differs between gender, i.e., significantly more male subjects are characterized as individualistic subjects. Second, once we control for social value orientation the gender differential disappears. JEL Classification numbers: C91, H26, J16.

show abstract

“…2008; Childs, 2012;Erat and Gneezy, 2012;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2013Conrads et al, , 2014Abeler et al, 2014). 1 So far, the literature on lying behavior has mainly analyzed decisions by individuals; possibly in strategic interaction with other individuals as in tournaments (see e.g., Conrads et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• We analyze gender effects in the lying behavior of groups and individuals.• We extend the die-rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013).• There are no pronounced gender effects under individual decision-making.• Strong gender effects emerge under joint decision-making in groups.• There is more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tExtending the die rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013), we compare gender effects with respect to unethical behavior by individuals and by two-person groups. In contrast to individual decisions, gender matters strongly under group decisions. We find more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups.

show abstract

Gender differences in lying

Cited by 122 publications

References 17 publications

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About