IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v90y2022ics0167487022000290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lying behavior when payoffs are shared with charity: Experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Chua, Scott Lee
  • Chang, Jessica
  • Riambau, Guillem

Abstract

We investigate lying behavior when lying is undetectable and payoffs are split with charity. 524 participants roll a die in private, report the outcome, and receive the monetary equivalent of their reported number, i.e., there is a clear incentive to lie. Participants are randomly assigned to share all, some, or none of this payoff with a charity of their choice. This allows us to examine how lying behavior changes with the share of payoffs going to charity. Our results are as follows: (i) there are participants in every group who lie to inflate their reported number; (ii) overall lying behavior is significant for all groups, except that in which participants keep none of the payoff; and (iii) post-experiment surveys reveal that participants who keep the whole payoff are much less likely to admit to having cheated than all other participants. Finally, our data suggests that lying is not correlated with any observable sociodemographic characteristic.

Suggested Citation

  • Chua, Scott Lee & Chang, Jessica & Riambau, Guillem, 2022. "Lying behavior when payoffs are shared with charity: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0167487022000290
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2022.102512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487022000290
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2022.102512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Urs Fischbacher & Franziska Föllmi-Heusi, 2013. "Lies In Disguise—An Experimental Study On Cheating," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 525-547, June.
    2. Uri Gneezy & Agne Kajackaite & Joel Sobel, 2018. "Lying Aversion and the Size of the Lie," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 419-453, February.
    3. Wiltermuth, Scott S., 2011. "Cheating more when the spoils are split," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 157-168, July.
    4. Lewis, Alan & Bardis, Alexander & Flint, Chloe & Mason, Claire & Smith, Natalya & Tickle, Charlotte & Zinser, Jennifer, 2012. "Drawing the line somewhere: An experimental study of moral compromise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 718-725.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:563-571 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    7. Benistant, Julien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Unethical behavior and group identity in contests," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 128-155.
    8. Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "I might be a liar, but I am not a thief: An experimental distinction between the moral costs of lying and stealing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 135-139.
    9. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    10. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A. & Konrad, Kai A., 2018. "Deception under time pressure: Conscious decision or a problem of awareness?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-42.
    11. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    12. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo & Collin Raymond, 2019. "Preferences for Truth‐Telling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1115-1153, July.
    13. Franzen, Axel & Pointner, Sonja, 2012. "Anonymity in the dictator game revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 74-81.
    14. Hermann, Daniel & Brenig, Mattheus, 2022. "Dishonest online: A distinction between observable and unobservable lying," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Babin, J. Jobu & Chauhan, Haritima S., 2024. "Replication: Erat and Gneezy’s white lies paradigm," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Loessl, Victor von & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn & Wetzel, Heike & Wiederhold, Elina, 2024. "Would you lie about your mother's birthday? A new online dishonesty experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Parra, Daniel, 2024. "Eliciting dishonesty in online experiments: The observed vs. mind cheating game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A., 2021. "Compliance in teams – Implications of joint decisions and shared consequences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    3. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    4. Billur Aksoy & Marco A. Palma, "undated". "The Effects of Scarcity on Cheating and In-Group Favoritism," Working Papers 20180918-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    5. Thielmann, Isabel & Hilbig, Benjamin E., 2019. "No gain without pain: The psychological costs of dishonesty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 126-137.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:345-355 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    8. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    9. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "White lies in tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jantsje M. Mol & Eline C. M. Heijden & Jan J. M. Potters, 2020. "(Not) alone in the world: Cheating in the presence of a virtual observer," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 961-978, December.
    12. Dato, Simon & Feess, Eberhard & Nieken, Petra, 2019. "Lying and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 193-218.
    13. Buckle, Georgia E. & Füllbrunn, Sascha & Luhan, Wolfgang J., 2021. "Lying for others: The impact of agency on misreporting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Fosgaard, Toke, 2019. "Defaults and dishonesty – Evidence from a representative sample in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 670-679.
    15. Shuguang Jiang & Marie Claire Villeval, 2024. "Dishonesty as a collective‐risk social dilemma," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(1), pages 223-241, January.
    16. Andrea Albertazzi, 2022. "Individual cheating in the lab: a new measure and external validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 37-67, July.
    17. Hermann, Daniel & Ostermaier, Andreas, 2018. "Be close to me and I will be honest: How social distance influences honesty," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 340, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Mitkidis, Panagiotis & Ayal, Shahar & Shalvi, Shaul & Heimann, Katrin & Levy, Gabriel & Kyselo, Miriam & Wallot, Sebastian & Ariely, Dan & Roepstorff, Andreas, 2017. "The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: The performers-observers gap hypothesis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-7.
    19. Fochmann, Martin & Fochmann, Nadja & Kocher, Martin G. & Müller, Nadja, 2021. "Dishonesty and risk-taking: Compliance decisions of individuals and groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 250-286.
    20. Rahwan, Zoe & Hauser, Oliver P. & Kochanowska, Ewa & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "High stakes: A little more cheating, a lot less charity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 276-295.
    21. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2020. "Profession and deception: Experimental evidence on lying behavior among business and medical students," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 175-187.
    22. Lilleholt, Lau & Schild, Christoph & Zettler, Ingo, 2020. "Not all computerized cheating tasks are equal: A comparison of computerized and non-computerized versions of a cheating task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dishonesty; Charity; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0167487022000290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.