The Good, the Bad, and the Angry: An Experimental Study on the Heterogeneity of People's (Dis)honest Behavior

Barcelo, Hélène; Capraro, Valerio

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3094305

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two early studies using time constraints to manipulate cognitive mode found that honesty requires deliberation (Gunia et al, 2012;Shalvi et al, 2012). This conclusion was challenged by three more recent studies, two of which found the opposite effect, that time pressure promotes honesty (Capraro, 2017;Lohse et al, 2018), while the third one found a null effect (Barcelo & Capraro, 2017). Studies using different cognitive processing manipulations, such as conceptual priming of intuition (Cappelen et al, 2013), ego-depletion (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead & Ariely, 2011), and cognitive load (van't Veer, Stel & van Beest, 2014) have also led to mixed results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

Capraro

Schulz

Rand

2019

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous experiments have found mixed results on whether honesty is intuitive or requires deliberation. Here we add to this literature by building on prior work of Capraro (2017). We report a large study (N=1,389) manipulating time pressure vs time delay in a deception game. We find that, in this setting, people are more honest under time pressure, and that this result is not driven by confounds present in earlier work.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

Capraro

Schulz

Rand

2019

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have approached this question from several angles. For example, scholars have explored the role of social and moral preferences (Biziou-van-Pol et al, 2015;Levine & Schweitzer, 2014;Levine & Schweitzer, 2015;Shalvi & de Dreu, 2014;Weisel & Shalvi, 2015), the role of incentives (Dreber & Johannesson, 2008;Erat & Gneezy, 2012;Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi, 2013;Gneezy, 2005;Gneezy, Kajackaite & Sobel, 2018;Mazar, Amir & Ariely, 2008;Sutter, 2009), the role of group-serving lies versus individual-serving lies (Cohen, Gunia, Kim-Jun & Murnighan, 2009;Conrads, Irlenbusch, Rilke & Walkowitz, 2013;Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2013;Wiltermuth, 2011), and the role of manipulating cognitive resources (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead & Ariely, 2011;Shalvi, Eldar & Bereby-Meyer, 2012;Gunia et al, 2012;van't Veer, Stel & van Beest, 2014;Capraro, 2017;Barcelo & Capraro, 2017;Lohse, Simon & Konrad, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis

Capraro¹

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether there are gender differences in lying has been largely debated in the past decade.Previous studies found mixed results. To shed light on this topic, here I report a meta-analysis of 8,728 distinct observations, collected in 65 Sender-Receiver game treatments, by 14 research groups. Following previous work and theoretical considerations, I distinguish three types of lies: black lies, that benefit the liar at a cost for another person; altruistic white lies, that benefit another person at a cost for the liar; Pareto white lies, that benefit both the liar and another person. The results show that gender differences in lying significantly depend on the consequences of lying. Specifically: (i) males are significantly more likely than females to tell black lies (N=4,161); (ii) males are significantly more likely than females to tell altruistic white (N=2,940); (iii) results are inconclusive in the case of Pareto white lies (N=1,627).

show abstract

“…Importantly, the stimulation had a heterogeneous effect: Some participants became more honest, whereas others did not change their behavior. Heterogeneity in cheating behavior was also found by Barcelo and Capraro (Barcelo & Capraro, 2018). It is the heterogeneity of the decision to cheat that we aim to explore here.…”

Section: The Process Of Dishonestymentioning

confidence: 82%

“…From previous research, we further know that people tend to spend more time looking at dishonesty outcomes (Pittarello, Leib, Gordon‐Hecker, & Shalvi, 2015) and tend to be drawn toward the choice option with the highest reward (Hochman, Glöckner, Fiedler, & Ayal, 2016). Based on inspiration from this research, the aDDM, and the expectation of heterogeneous choice processes (Barcelo & Capraro, 2018; Maréchal et al, 2017), we hypothesize that heterogeneity in the attention path exists within the decision leading up to the act of being honest or dishonest. Specifically, we expect that some decisions exhibit relatively little variation and quickly orient to their preferred option, suggesting little vacillation, whereas other choices show greater consideration of alternatives and take longer to reach a decision, suggesting greater vacillation in the process of deciding whether to cheat or be honest.…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The heterogeneous processes of cheating: Attention evidence from two eye tracking experiments

Fosgaard

Jacobsen²,

Street

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dishonesty erodes society. Although much is known about dishonesty, the process leading up to the decision of whether to be honest or dishonest is often assumed to be homogenous and is not well understood. In this paper, we take a more nuanced approach and explore more closely the process of deciding whether to cheat or be honest when an opportunity to cheat arises. We do this in two laboratory eye tracking experiments. In our first experiment (n = 193), we identify heterogeneity in the decision to cheat. Some decisions on whether to cheat or be honest exhibit relatively little variation and appear to be oriented towards cheating (or honesty) with apparently little consideration of the alternative, whereas other decisions seem to be characterized by a higher degree of consideration for both decision alternatives. Our second experiment (n = 299) demonstrates that a gaze dependent intervention in the choices process is able to affect the behavioral outcomes.

show abstract

The Good, the Bad, and the Angry: An Experimental Study on the Heterogeneity of People's (Dis)honest Behavior

Cited by 9 publications

References 57 publications

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis

The heterogeneous processes of cheating: Attention evidence from two eye tracking experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About