Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-fz5kh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T14:08:51.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do people tell the truth? Experimental evidence for pure lie aversion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Raúl López-Pérez  and
Eli Spiegelman
Raúl López-Pérez*
Affiliation:
Department of Economic Analysis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Eli Spiegelman*
Affiliation:
Departement des Sciences Économiques, Université de Québec a Montréal, Montréal, Canada Department of Economics and Political Science, Vanier College, St-Laurent, Canada
*
e-mail: raul.lopez@uam.es
e-mail: spiegele@vaniercollege.qc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A recent experimental literature shows that truth-telling is not always motivated by pecuniary motives, and several alternative motivations have been proposed. However, their relative importance in any given context is still not totally clear. This paper investigates the relevance of pure lie aversion, that is, a dislike for lies independent of their consequences. We propose a very simple design where other motives considered in the literature predict zero truth-telling, whereas pure lie aversion predicts a non-zero rate. Thus we interpret the finding that more than a third of the subjects tell the truth as evidence for pure lie aversion. Our design also prevents confounds with another motivation (a desire to act as others expect us to act) not frequently considered but consistent with much existing evidence. We also observe that subjects who tell the truth are more likely to believe that others will tell the truth as well.

Keywords

CommunicationHonestyGuilt aversionLie aversionNorms

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C70: General

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 233 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9324-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We are indebted to Matthieu Chemin, Joan Crespo, Bruno Deffains, Claude Fluet, Sean Horan, Hubert Kiss, Pierre Laserre, and Marc Vorsatz for helpful comments. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education through the research project ECO2008-00510, and helpful research assistance by Sayoko Aketa and David Sánchez. Eli Spiegelman thanks Claude Fluet for guidance, encouragement and support.

References

Battigalli, P., & Dufwenberg, M. (2007). Guilt in games. American Economic Review, 97(2), 170–176. 10.1257/aer.97.2.170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battigalli, P., & Dufwenberg, M. (2009). Dynamic psychological games. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(1), 1–35. 10.1016/j.jet.2008.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2005). The grammar of society, London: Oxford University Press 10.1017/CBO978051161603710.1017/CBO9780511616037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. (1999). Social distance and other regarding behavior in dictator games: comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339. 10.1257/aer.89.1.335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375–398. 10.1007/s10683-011-9272-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, N. R., Johnson, E. J., & Croson, R. (2006). Let’s get personal: an international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 373–398. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnerships. Econometrica, 74(6), 1579–1601. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00719.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 58(6), 1015–1026. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Gneezy, U. (2000). Measuring beliefs in an experimental lost wallet game. Games and Economic Behavior, 30, 163–182. 10.1006/game.1999.0715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2004). Promises, threats, and fairness. Economic Journal, 114, 397–420. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00214.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., & Heusi, F. (2008). Lies in disguise: an experimental study on cheating. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: the role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384–394. 10.1257/0002828053828662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurkens, S., & Kartik, N. (2009). Would I lie to you? On social preferences and lying aversion. Experimental Economics, 12, 180–192. 10.1007/s10683-008-9208-210.1007/s10683-008-9208-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartik, N. (2009). Strategic communication with lying costs. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1359–1395. 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00559.x10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00559.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Pérez, R. (2012). The power of words: a model of honesty and fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 642–658. 10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Pérez, R., & Vorsatz, M. (2010). On approval and disapproval: theory and experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 527–541. 10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.01610.1016/j.joep.2010.03.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Pérez, R., & Spiegelman, E. (2012). Do economists lie more? Mimeo.Google Scholar
Lundquist, T., Ellingsen, T., Gribbe, E., & Johannesson, M. (2009). The aversion to lying. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 81–92. 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orbell, J., Dawes, R., & van de Kragt, A. (1990). The limits of multilateral promising. Ethics, 100, 616–627. 10.1086/293213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, R., & Vorsatz, M. Walzl, M. (2007). Truth, trust, and sanctions: on institutional selection in sender-receiver games. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert communication in laboratories, classrooms, and the truly real world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 151–154. 10.1111/1467-8721.t01-1-01250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Pagés, S., & Vorsatz, M. (2009). Enjoy the silence: an experiment on truth-telling. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 220–241. 10.1007/s10683-008-9211-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, M., Rothmayr, C., Döhnel, K., Meinhardt, J., Schwerdtner, J., Sodian, B., & Hajak, G. (2010). How should I decide? The neural correlates of everyday moral reasoning. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2018–2026. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, M. (2009). Deception through telling the truth!? Experimental evidence from individuals and teams. Economic Journal, 119, 47–60. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02205.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanberg, C. (2008). Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica, 76(6), 1467–1480. 10.3982/ECTA7673Google Scholar
Zak, P. J. (2011). Moral markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(2), 212–233. 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

López-Pérez and Spiegelman supplementary material

López-Pérez and Spiegelman supplementary material
Download López-Pérez and Spiegelman supplementary material(File)
File 152.9 KB