The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
LIES IN DISGUISE-AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CHEATING
Abstract
We present a novel experimental design to measure honesty and lying. Participants receive a die which they roll privately. Since their payoff depends on the reported roll of the die, the subjects have an incentive to be dishonest and report higher numbers to get a higher payoff. This design has three advantages. First, cheating cannot be detected on the individual level, which reduces potential demand effects. Second, the method is very easy to implement. Third, the underlying true distribution of the outcome under full honesty is known, and hence it is possible to test different theoretical predictions. We find that about 20% of inexperienced subjects lie to the fullest extent possible while 39% of subjects are fully honest. In addition, a high share of subjects consists of partial liars; these subjects lie, but do not report the payoff-maximizing draw. We discuss different motives that explain the observed behavioral pattern.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00253 · Cited by 2,913
The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633 · Cited by 2,875
In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy.
Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1335 · Cited by 317 · cited 3×
“Methodologically, our design is related to the procedure of Batson et al. (1997) where subjects were asked to assign a good and a bad task to themselves and another subject by reporting the result of a coin flip and to the random response method used in social psychology (Warner 1965).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-Signaling and Diagnostic Utility in Everyday Decision Making
Bodner, R., & Prelec, D. (2003) · The Psychology of Economic Decisions · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199251063.003.0006 · Cited by 258
Cited by
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004 · Cited by 3,450
Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry
Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13977 · Cited by 687
Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies
Gächter, S., & Schulz, J. F. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17160 · Cited by 551
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000111 · Cited by 519
Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001 · Cited by 515
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F.
- Venue
- Journal of the European Economic Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 525-547
- ISSN
- 1542-4766 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1544763516
- Cited by
- 1,243
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 166.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: LIES IN DISGUISE-AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CHEATING. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jeea.12014
- The paper
- Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). LIES IN DISGUISE-AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CHEATING. Journal of the European Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
