Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Intentional Deceiving

Panasiti, Maria Serena; Pavone, Enea Francesco; Aglioti, Salvatore Maria

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019465

Cited by 44 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, some studies do not show this pattern. For example, Panasiti, Pavone, Merla, Aglioti, and Perc () did not find a direct relation between moral disengagement and lying. In the context of our experiment, it might be the case that by providing justification via counterfactual information, people did not need to rely on their ability to disengage the moral aspects from the situation in order to cheat, resulting in a null effect of moral disengagement on cheating.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

show abstract

“…In this study, we used an ecological paradigm for assessing deception (Panasiti et al ., , , ) in order to explore how social judgements along these two dimensions modulate the decision to lie to others. In this two‐person online card game, participants are always entirely free to decide whether to lie or tell the truth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived warmth and competence of others shape voluntary deceptive behaviour in a morally relevant setting

Azevedo

Panasiti

Maglio³

et al. 2017

British J of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The temptation to deceive others compares to a moral dilemma: it involves a conflict between the temptation to obtain some benefit and the desire to conform to personal and social moral norms or avoid aversive social consequences. Thus, people might feel different levels of emotional and moral conflict depending on the target of the deception. Here we explored, in a morally relevant setting, how social judgements based on two fundamental dimensions of human social cognition – ‘warmth’ and ‘competence’ – impact on the decision to deceive others. Results revealed independent effects for warmth and competence. Specifically, while people are less inclined to deceive for self‐gain those individuals they perceive as warm, they also tend to lie more to highly competent others. Furthermore, the perceived warmth and competence modulated the general tendency to reduce deceptive behaviour when there was a risk of disclosure compared to when the lying was anonymous, highlighting the importance of these judgements in social evaluation processes. Together, our results demonstrate that the emotional costs and personal moral standards that inhibit engagement in deceptive behaviour are not stable but rather malleable according to the target and the consequences of the deception.

show abstract

“…People high on social adroitness and extroversion reported telling more lies during social interactions, whereas people with higher quality of same-sex relationships reported less lies [5]. In one study the authors demonstrated that people high on manipulativeness and moral disengagement are less likely to refrain from lying when their reputation is at risk [8]. These results confirm that personality traits influence the likelihood of lying in different contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Previous research has clearly indicated that the tendency to engage in deceptive behaviors is related to specific personality traits and contextual factors [3][4][5][6]8,10]. Intellectual abilities are important for the quality of lies [26,31] and are related to deceptive communication style [32,33,53].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several personality traits (for example, psychopathy) are partially defined in terms of deceiving and manipulating others. Research suggests that different combinations of personality traits increase the likelihood of lying [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. People high in antisocial personality traits -Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy, known collectively as 'the Dark Triad' [11] -lie more often; psychopathy is linked to lies for no reason, narcissism to self-gain lies and Machiavellianism to white as well as self-gain lies [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

More intelligent extroverts are more likely to deceive

Sarzyńska¹,

Falkiewicz²,

Riegel³

et al. 2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tendency to lie is a part of personality. But are personality traits the only factors that make some people lie more often than others? We propose that cognitive abilities have equal importance. People with higher cognitive abilities are better, and thus more effective liars. This might reinforce using lies to solve problems. Yet, there is no empirical research that shows this relationship in healthy adults. Here we present three studies in which the participants had free choice about their honesty. We related differences in cognitive abilities and personality to the odds of lying. Results show that personality and intelligence are both important. People low on agreeableness and intelligent extroverts are most likely to lie. This suggests that intelligence might mediate the relationship between personality traits and lying frequency. While personality traits set general behavioral tendencies, intelligence and environment set boundaries.2

show abstract

Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Intentional Deceiving

Cited by 44 publications

References 29 publications

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Perceived warmth and competence of others shape voluntary deceptive behaviour in a morally relevant setting

More intelligent extroverts are more likely to deceive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About