What lies beneath: How the distance between truth and lie drives dishonesty

Based on the assumption that dishonesty poses a threat to one's self view, recent research has put forward the notion that people avoid major lies. However, existing empirical work has not tested this notion conclusively, given that studies have associated larger degrees of dishonesty with larg...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of experimental social psychology 2013-03, Vol.49 (2), p.263-266
Hauptverfasser: Hilbig, Benjamin E., Hessler, Corinna M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Based on the assumption that dishonesty poses a threat to one's self view, recent research has put forward the notion that people avoid major lies. However, existing empirical work has not tested this notion conclusively, given that studies have associated larger degrees of dishonesty with larger payoffs. It thus remains unclear whether people actually do avoid major lies or rather shy away from large (unjustified) payoffs, e.g. since the latter are generally more likely to trigger suspicion. Thus, we critically tested the hypothesis that the probability of dishonesty is a decreasing function of the distance between the actual truth and the lie that is necessary to increase ones gains. In a modified dice-game paradigm, a highly specific behavioral pattern was predicted by this hypothesis and results from a large (N=765), incentivized and fully anonymous study confirmed the latter, thus corroborating that people indeed avoid major lies. ► Theories propose that people avoid major lies to retain a positive self-view. ► Despite much recent research, a critical test of this notion is lacking. ► We designed a new paradigm and conducted a large scale empirical test. ► Results corroborate that dishonesty indeed depends on distance between truth and lie.
ISSN:0022-1031
1096-0465
DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.010