The Truth About Lies: A Meta-Analysis on Dishonest Behavior
The Truth About Lies: A Meta-Analysis on Dishonest Behavior
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/bul0000174
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
影响因子：
22.4
通讯作者：
Hertwig, Ralph
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gerlach, Philipp;Teodorescu, Kinneret;Hertwig, Ralph
在过去的十年里，大量的实验研究分析了不诚实的行为。然而，关于人们何时会做出（不）诚实行为的研究结果在某种程度上是不清楚的，甚至是矛盾的。因此，对与不诚实行为相关的因素进行系统分析似乎是可取的。本荟萃分析回顾了四个最广泛使用的实验范式：发送者-接收者游戏，掷骰子任务，抛硬币任务和矩阵任务。我们整合了来自565个实验（总共N = 44,050个选择）的数据，以解决许多正在进行的关于谁在什么情况下表现出不诚实的争论。我们的研究结果表明，不诚实的行为既取决于情境因素，如奖励的大小和外部性，也取决于个人因素，如参与者的性别和年龄。此外，实验室研究与更多的不诚实比实地研究，并在实验中使用欺骗与不诚实较少。不同的实验范式在一定程度上得出了不同的结论。例如，在掷骰子和矩阵任务中说谎的人比例相当，但在掷骰子任务中说谎者的说谎程度要高得多。我们还发现了大量的证据，在几乎所有的不诚实行为的措施出版偏见。未来关于不诚实的研究将受益于更具代表性的参与者群体，并澄清为什么不同的实验范式会得出不同的结论。
Over the past decade, a large and growing body of experimental research has analyzed dishonest behavior. Yet the findings as to when people engage in (dis) honest behavior are to some extent unclear and even contradictory. A systematic analysis of the factors associated with dishonest behavior thus seems desirable. This meta-analysis reviews four of the most widely used experimental paradigms: sender-receiver games, die-roll tasks, coin-flip tasks, and matrix tasks. We integrate data from 565 experiments (totaling N = 44,050 choices) to address many of the ongoing debates on who behaves dishonestly and under what circumstances. Our findings show that dishonest behavior depends on both situational factors, such as reward magnitude and externalities, and personal factors, such as the participant's gender and age. Further, laboratory studies are associated with more dishonesty than field studies, and the use of deception in experiments is associated with less dishonesty. To some extent, the different experimental paradigms come to different conclusions. For example, a comparable percentage of people lie in die-roll and matrix tasks, but in die-roll tasks liars lie to a considerably greater degree. We also find substantial evidence for publication bias in almost all measures of dishonest behavior. Future research on dishonesty would benefit from more representative participant pools and from clarifying why the different experimental paradigms yield different conclusions.