CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 217Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsDeception detection and forensic psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deception and self-deception

Open access
Schwardmann, Peter, van der Weele, Joël·2019·Nature Human Behaviour
DOI 10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is ample evidence that the average person thinks he or she is more skilful, more beautiful and kinder than others 1,2 and that such overconfidence may result in substantial personal and social costs 3-8. To explain the prevalence of overconfidence, social scientists usually point to its affective benefits, such as those stemming from a good self-image or reduced anxiety about an uncertain future 9-13. An alternative theory, first advanced by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers 14-16, posits that people self-deceive into higher confidence to more effectively persuade or deceive others. Here we conduct two experiments (combined n = 688) to test this strategic self-deception hypothesis. After performing a cognitively challenging task, half of our subjects are informed that they can earn money if, during a short face-to-face interaction, they convince others of their superior performance. We find that the privately elicited beliefs of the group that was informed of the profitable deception opportunity exhibit significantly more overconfidence than the beliefs of the control group. To test whether higher confidence ultimately pays off, we experimentally manipulate the confidence of the subjects by means of a noisy feedback signal. We find that this exogenous shift in confidence makes subjects more persuasive in subsequent face-to-face interactions. Overconfidence emerges from these results as the product of an adaptive cognitive technology with important social benefits, rather than some deficiency or bias.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Baumeister, R. F. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Gilbert, D. et al.) (McGraw-Hill, 1998).
  2. Glaser, M. & Weber, M. Overconfidence and trading volume. Geneva Risk Insur. Rev. 32, 1–36 (2007). · DOI
  3. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S. & Camerer, C. F. Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. Am. Econ. Rev. 85, 1337–1343 (1995).
  4. Greiner, B. An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forsch. Wiss. Rechn. 63, 79–93 (2003).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 217

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schwardmann, P., & van der Weele, J.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Schwardmann, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-07-29
Volume
3
Issue
10
Pages
1055-1061
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7
OpenAlex
W3121342465
Cited by
215
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 12
FWCI
42.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der LMU
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452-17-004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
overconfidence, self-deception, persuasion, deception, belief updating, noisy feedback, self-image, cognitive biases, adaptive cognition
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Deception, Male, Self Concept, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review