Lying and team incentives

Conrads, Julian; Irlenbusch, Bernd; Rilke, Rainer Michael; Walkowitz, Gari

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2012.10.011

Cited by 200 publications

(182 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These additional analyses confirm that oxytocin drives dishonesty when it serves one's group, but not when it only serves personal self-interest. Moreover, and as seen in other work (22), these additional analyses show that this oxytocin-motivated group-serving dishonesty manifests itself especially in extreme lies.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Indeed, in her testimony, the mother indicated that she deliberately took the risk of punishment to improve her children's chances in life (20). Such motivation to serve others, it stands to reason, is more powerful and makes it easier to generate justification for moral code breaking than a motivation to serve personal interests only (even when holding personal profit constant) (21)(22)(23)(24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty

Shalvi

Dreu

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To protect and promote the well-being of others, humans may bend the truth and behave unethically. Here we link such tendencies to oxytocin, a neuropeptide known to promote affiliation and cooperation with others. Using a simple coin-toss prediction task in which participants could dishonestly report their performance levels to benefit their group's outcome, we tested the prediction that oxytocin increases group-serving dishonesty. A double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment allowing individuals to lie privately and anonymously to benefit themselves and fellow group members showed that healthy males (n = 60) receiving intranasal oxytocin, rather than placebo, lied more to benefit their group, and did so faster, yet did not necessarily do so because they expected reciprocal dishonesty from fellow group members. Treatment effects emerged when lying had financial consequences and money could be gained; when losses were at stake, individuals in placebo and oxytocin conditions lied to similar degrees. In a control condition (n = 60) in which dishonesty only benefited participants themselves, but not fellow group members, oxytocin did not influence lying. Together, these findings fit a functional perspective on morality revealing dishonesty to be plastic and rooted in evolved neurobiological circuitries, and align with work showing that oxytocin shifts the decision-maker's focus from self to group interests. These findings highlight the role of bonding and cooperation in shaping dishonesty, providing insight into when and why collaboration turns into corruption.decision making | behavioral economics | behavioral ethics | lies | honesty

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty

Shalvi

Dreu

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is confirmed by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on average reported profit levels (p = 0.047). Hence, we support the gender differences predominately found in the literature (e.g., Dreber and Johannesson, 2008;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2013).…”

Section: The Impact Of Gender and Svo On Honestysupporting

confidence: 90%

“…We condition SVO types on individualists and prosocials as we could not identify any altruists and only one competitive type. 10 Subjects report an average a profit level of 3.19 which is similar to previous finding of Conrads et al (2013) who played a die game with higher stake size. 11…”

Section: The Impact Of Gender and Svo On Honestysupporting

confidence: 81%

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Grosch

Rau

2017

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may University of Mannheim, University of Göttingen March 2017Abstract This paper experimentally analyzes the determinants of the honesty norm in a lying game. The findings confirm common gender differences, i.e., men cheat significantly more than women. We detect a novel correlation between subjects' magnitude of concern they have for others (social value orientation) and their moral valuation of the norm honesty. The data suggest that individualistic subjects are less honest than prosocial ones. Interestingly, this difference can explain the gender differences we observe. First, we find that the distribution of social value orientation differs between gender, i.e., significantly more male subjects are characterized as individualistic subjects. Second, once we control for social value orientation the gender differential disappears. JEL Classification numbers: C91, H26, J16.

show abstract

“…2008; Childs, 2012;Erat and Gneezy, 2012;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2013Conrads et al, , 2014Abeler et al, 2014). 1 So far, the literature on lying behavior has mainly analyzed decisions by individuals; possibly in strategic interaction with other individuals as in tournaments (see e.g., Conrads et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• We analyze gender effects in the lying behavior of groups and individuals.• We extend the die-rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013).• There are no pronounced gender effects under individual decision-making.• Strong gender effects emerge under joint decision-making in groups.• There is more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tExtending the die rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013), we compare gender effects with respect to unethical behavior by individuals and by two-person groups. In contrast to individual decisions, gender matters strongly under group decisions. We find more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups.

show abstract

Lying and team incentives

Cited by 200 publications

References 26 publications

Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty

Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About