The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior.

Gerlach, Philipp; Teodorescu, Kinneret; Hertwig, Ralph

doi:10.1037/bul0000174

Cited by 213 publications

(265 citation statements)

References 195 publications

(278 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

228

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to our prediction, we did not observe a positive relationship between m 1 (a construct conceptually closer than m 0 to Mazar 10 Although the meta-analytic study of Gerlach et al (2019) also showed that greater potential reward sizes are linked to higher cheating in sender-receiver games. 11 Laske, Saccardo, and Gneezy (2018)…”

Section: Phasecontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Also, meta‐analyses of studies focusing on the roll a die paradigm have shown no relationship between incentive size and willingness to lie (Abeler, Nosenzo, & Raymond, in press; Gerlach et al, ). The way that incentive size is manipulated has been said to play a role (Charness, Gneezy, & Kuhn, ), with incentives manipulated as a within‐participants factor being more influential (Hilbig & Thielmann, ) compared with incentives manipulated as a between‐participants factor (Fischbacher & Föllmi‐Heusi, ; Mazar et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feelings of illusory anonymity foster cheating (Zhong, Bohns, & Gino, 2010). Thus, it is not surprising that cheating has been shown to be greater when the same study is performed online compared with when it is performed in a laboratory (Bereby-Meyer et al, 2018;Gerlach, Teodorescu, & Hertwig, 2019). Interestingly, studies have discussed the possibility that clusters of "cheaters" exist among MTurk samples (Chandler & Paolacci, 2017).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

Markiewicz

Fernández

2019

J Behav Dec Making

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

Previous studies show that decision makers (DMs) lie more to avoid a loss than achieve a gain. Two compelling mechanisms might explain this observation. One assumes that lying is a risky activity and relates to the shape of the monetary value function described by prospect theory, which assumes (a) increased risk taking for loss frames and (b) an asymmetry between the perceived values of losses and gains. The other relates to the importance of self‐esteem functions as expressed in self‐concept maintenance models, self‐esteem issues being weighed against monetary issues. This alternative explanation assumes that a loss frame serves as a factor lowering moral considerations. We report an experimental study presenting sets of lotteries to DMs, once in a moral context and once in a traditional probabilistic context. The results show that DMs take less risk when lotteries are presented in a moral context. It is also shown that DMs take more risk for losses than gains, this holding for both the moral and probabilistic contexts. This latter result suggests that loss/gain asymmetry can be completely explained by prospect theory factors, and framing makes no difference to the valuing of moral considerations.

show abstract

Section: Phasecontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

Markiewicz

Fernández

2019

J Behav Dec Making

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

show abstract

“…As reviewed above, there has been some research looking at the cognitive basis of honesty as a function of gender. Gender is known to influence lying and, by now, there are three metaanalyses showing that men lie more than women (Abeler, Nosenzo & Raymond, in press;Capraro, 2018;Gerlach, Teodorescu & Hertwig, 2019). Therefore, it is natural to ask whether gender interacts with cognitive mode in determining the decision whether to lie.…”

Section: Outlook and Open Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dual-Process Approach to Human Sociality: A Review

Capraro

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

Which social decisions are intuitive? Which are deliberative? The dual-process approach to human sociality has emerged in the last decades as a vibrant and exciting area of research. Here, I review the existing literature on the cognitive basis of cooperation, altruism, honesty, equity-efficiency, positive and negative reciprocity, and moral judgments. For each of these domains, I list a number of open problems that I believe to be crucial to further advance our understanding of human social cognition. I conclude by making an attempt to introduce a game-theoretical framework to organize the existing empirical evidence. This framework seems promising, as it turns out to make predictions that are generally in line with the experimental data in all but one domain: positive reciprocity. I tried to keep the review selfcontained, exhaustive, and research-oriented. My hope is that it can contribute to bring further attention to this fascinating area of research.

show abstract

“…Similarly, the results of studies on adults are mixed as to whether temptation triggers cheating. Studies show that (a) DMs cheat more willingly for more tempting incentives (Dreber & Johannesson, 2008;Hilbig & Thielmann, 2017;Kajackaite & Gneezy, 2017;Markiewicz & Czupryna, 2019;Shalvi, Dana, Handgraaf, & De Dreu, 2011) and that (b) the proportion of lies told (and the magnitude of lies) is similar for small and large stakes (Abeler, Nosenzo, & Raymond, 2019;Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi, 2013;Gerlach, Teodorescu, & Hertwig, 2019;Kajackaite & Gneezy, 2015;Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008;Rahwan, Hauser, Kochanowska, & Fasolo, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Markiewicz

Gawryluk

2019

J Behav Dec Making

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

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

The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior.

Cited by 213 publications

References 195 publications

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

The Dual-Process Approach to Human Sociality: A Review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About