Impromptu Decisions to Deceive

Abstract

This research furthers understanding of the factors that induce individuals to choose deception. Its goals were to expand and test a recent account of the cognition of deception, Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory (ADCAT), in a mock job interview inviting impromptu deception. Decisions to lie are hypothesized to depend on the truth and other information activated from long-term memory by the social context. Activated information then guides evaluation of the likely costs of truth telling and benefits of deception; 166 college students participated in the job interview, who learned about the position and then adopted the role of job applicants. Afterward, participants shared their thoughts when responding to five questions from the interview. The most important findings are that the negative expectations of sharing truths and the positive expectations of sharing deceptions each account for unique variance in deciding to lie. Implications for lie reduction and detection are considered.

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

“…It was also the first study to look at how reason to lie can affect this decision-making process. In support of Walczyk et al (2016) and Masip et al (2016), positive associations were found between calculated motivation to lie and expecting to decide to lie. Additionally, we found a positive relationship between the EV of lying and deciding to lie, in line with Walczyk et al (2016), but contrary to Masip et al (2016).…”

“…In support of Walczyk et al (2016) and Masip et al (2016), positive associations were found between calculated motivation to lie and expecting to decide to lie. Additionally, we found a positive relationship between the EV of lying and deciding to lie, in line with Walczyk et al (2016), but contrary to Masip et al (2016). We also found that a negative relationship between the EV of truth-telling and expecting to decide to lie only occurred when the lie was otheroriented.…”

“…Additionally, we found a positive relationship between the EV of lying and deciding to lie, in line with Walczyk et al . (), but contrary to Masip et al . ().…”

“…Due to the novelty of ADCAT, there are very few published studies that have employed this model. In fact, only two studies (Masip, Bland on-Gitlin, de la Riva, & Herrero, 2016;Walczyk, Tcholakian, Newman, & Duck, 2016) to date have tested the Decision component and its formulae. First, Masip et al (2016) used hypothetical scenarios typical for an undergraduate population (e.g., a friend cheating on a test or witnessing a theft).…”

“…However, their findings showed no relationship between the EV of lying and deciding to lie. Second, Walczyk et al (2016) investigated impromptu decisions to lie when asked embarrassing questions during a mock job interview. They also found that the EV of truth-telling was negatively correlated with deciding and actually telling a lie in the interview.…”