Exploring the decision component of the Activation‐Decision‐Construction‐Action Theory for different reasons to deceive

Abstract

Objectives To explore how reasons to lie impact upon the decision component of Activation‐Decision‐Construction‐Action Theory. Design Specifically, the study looked at how beneficiary of the lie (self vs. another) and additional cost of lying (no cost vs. cost to self/other) might influence decisions to lie. Methods Ninety‐one undergraduate students read four hypothetical scenarios representing the four reasons to lie. They stated whether they would decide to tell the truth/lie for each scenario and also estimated the probability and valence of being believed, or not, if they did decide to tell the truth/lie. These estimations were inputted into the ADCAT formulae. Results Higher expected values of truth‐telling only reduced likelihood to decide to lie when the lie benefitted another. Beneficiary of the lie and additional cost together did not moderate any of the relationships between the ADCAT variables and hypothetical decisions to lie. However, the additional cost (e.g., to self or another) was a significant predictor of anticipated lying behaviour. The more likely there was a cost to self or other, the less likely the participants were to decide to lie. Conclusions Weighing up the expected cost and benefits of truth‐telling and lying was associated with hypothetical decisions to lie or not. However, other variables, such as additional cost to self or another, should be considered in the ADCAT model to extend our understanding of this decision‐making process. Future research is required to investigate whether these relationships can be manipulated to promote honesty and deter deceit.

Who lies to protect another? Motivational, behavioral, and socio-cognitive predictors of children’s interventional deception

“…In order to behave prosocially and intervene for the benefit of the third party, the child needs to deceive a transgressor who intends to harm his potential victim. It was suggested that in case of other-oriented lies, an increase of the EV of truth-telling and a decrease of the EV of lying might lead to less motivation to lie (Cassidy, 2019). It was of interest for us to examine whether additional positive external gains to the self might encourage children to deceive interventionally.…”

Level of effort and economic dishonesty: Are expectations relevant?

“…Much of the research on morality and ethical judgments has used the scenario-based approach ( McMahon & Harvey, 2007 ). These scenarios have also been used to study organizational factors associated with dishonest employee behavior in the retail sector ( Jaakson et al, 2017 ), as well as in other research, for example, to find out what motivates consumers to lie ( Argo et al, 2006 ), a person’s reasons for deception ( Cassidy et al, 2019 ), or why students plagiarize or engage in other forms of cheating ( Waltzer & Dahl, 2021 ). Thus, to measure dishonest behavior, researchers often use scenarios because they can accurately reflect individuals’ emotions, intentions, and behaviors in different situations ( Wenzel & Reinhard, 2020 ).…”

The Verifiability Approach: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies and a Test of a Decline Effect

“…The latter should generate the idea that the interviewer will be able to check what is being said, leading to less verifiable statements from liars. In addition, increasing the perception of the lie verifiability should increase the cognitive load of the liars, which is helpful for lie detection (Cassidy et al, 2018; and discouraging people from lying.…”