Preferences for Truth‐Telling

Abeler, Johannes; Nosenzo, Daniele; Raymond, Collin

doi:10.3982/ecta14673

Cited by 620 publications

(633 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

503

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a robustness check, it was found that magnitude of cheating in the first phase of the study was a good predictor of propensity for further cheating in the second phase (which employed a different task). Note that this behavior has nothing to do with the moral cleansing reported in earlier studies and is contrary to a study of Abeler et al (in press) showing that the lying behavior of adults under a roll a die paradigm does not change if they make several repeated reports.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

Markiewicz

Gawryluk

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although early economic approaches to misbehavior merely compare the monetary utility of accessible options, self‐concept maintenance models introduce moral considerations to the equation. These assume that people trade off possible gains to be made from moral transgressions with associated decreases in self‐esteem. On the basis of the assumption that the development of moral values among children is weaker than in adults, we expected children's behavior to be close to that of the hypothetical homo economicus, with their decisions as to whether to cheat therefore being influenced by decision theory elements: normative elements such as temptation magnitude, and behavioral elements such as framing. As children should pay no heed to moral considerations in dynamic multiple task settings, behavior opposite to “moral cleansing” was expected, with a first lie predicting later lies. In addition to testing the above ideas, the present study adopted a novel methodology. Our hypotheses were tested in a lab‐in‐the‐field study using a modified “roll a die” method in a naturalistic setting for children of ages 7 to 10. We modified the method to identify both true and declared values of die rolls (a novel DICE+ electronic die was used). As expected, children were sensitive to temptation and cheated more willingly for more attractive prizes. Girls (but not boys) lied more (in terms of both frequency and magnitude) to avoid losses (with loss framing) than to make gains (with gain framing). Previous lying correlated positively with lying on subsequent tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

Markiewicz

Gawryluk

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… The gender effect is in line with previous studies that find that women are less likely to lie in economic experiments (Dreber and Johannesson, ; Abeler et al ., ) as well as with the finding that verification of personal data decreases males’ (but not females’) measured willingness to share personal data (Schudy and Utikal, ). The Preferences data are not verifiable and, according to the above‐mentioned studies, are more likely to be reported truthfully for women.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

The Willingness to Sell Personal Data

Benndorf

Normann²

2018

Scandinavian J Economics

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. The working papers published in the Series constitute work in progress circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comments. Views expressed represent exclusively the authors' own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor. Terms of use: Documents inThe Willingness to Sell Personal Data * Volker Benndorf † Hans-Theo Normann ‡ April 2014Abstract We elicit the willingness to sell personal data (contact information, Facebook details, preferences) in laboratory experiments, using a BDM and take-it-or-leave-it offers.Our experiments are novel in that (i) the experiments are incentivized, (ii) the focus on privacy issues is salient, and (iii) the use of the data-marketing purposes-is transparent and unambiguous. We find that only a minority of about 10% to 20%of the participants are unwilling to sell personal data, a share which is roughly constant across both the type of personal data and elicitation method. Subjects willing to sell request about e 15 for their contact details and e 19 for Facebook details.JEL Classification numbers: C90, C91, C81

show abstract

“…That said, we note that analyzing each distribution separately revealed no significant difference between the observed distribution and the expected distribution of “choosing the highest of three rolls” in two out of the three conditions. Recent research shows that people use the “highest of three” strategy across different countries (Gächter & Schulz, ), and that being instructed to test the die (and thus observe additional die roll outcomes) increases cheating behavior compared with participants who are not instructed to test the die (Abeler, Nosenzo, & Raymond, ). We encourage future research to use meta‐analytical approaches to assess the extent to which this strategy is robust to different settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Bassarak

Leib

Mischkowski

et al. 2017

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people can profit financially by lying, they do so to the extent to which they can justify their lies. One type of justification is the observation and production of desirable counterfactual information. Here, we disentangle observing and producing of desired counterfactuals and test whether the mere observation is sufficient or whether one actually needs to produce the information in order to justify lying. By employing a modified version of the Die‐Under‐Cup task, we ask participants to privately roll a die three times and to report the outcome of the first die roll (with higher values corresponding to higher payoffs). In all three conditions, participants produce (roll the die) and observe the first die roll, which is relevant for pay. We manipulate whether participants produce and observe versus only observe the second and third die roll outcomes, which are both irrelevant for pay. Results reveal that people lie to the same extent—when producing and observing the counterfactuals, and when merely observing them. It seems that merely observing counterfactual information is sufficient to allow people to use this information to justify their lies. We further test whether creativity and moral disengagement are associated with dishonesty and replicate the finding showing that unethical behavior increases with creativity. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Preferences for Truth‐Telling

Cited by 620 publications

References 125 publications

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

The Willingness to Sell Personal Data

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About