The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deception: The Role of Consequences
Abstract
Abstract: This paper studies the role of consequences in a person’s decision to lie. Based on findings from an experiment with a deception game, as well as from questionnaires, I propose a simple formulation of preferences to describe deception behavior. The decision maker uses the “truth telling ” outcome as a reference level when evaluating the benefits of lying. The monetary consequences of the lie are compared to this reference level. In the formulation used in this paper the decision maker’s utility depends on her own intentions. She is selfish in the sense of maximizing her own payoffs, but sensitive to the cost her lie imposes on the other side. Sensitivity diminishes with the size of payoffs. Moreover, since perception of the counterpart’s cost is subjective. When there are differences in wealth as in employee-employer relations or a consumer-insurer interactions, the decision maker is more likely to lie the wealthier the counterpart.
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
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving
Andreoni, J. (1990) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234133 · Cited by 5,825
Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis
Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/0047-2727(72)90010-2 · Cited by 4,970
Strategic information transmission
Crawford, V. P., & Sobel, J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913390 · Cited by 4,293
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias
Babcock, L., Wang, X., & Loewenstein, G. (1996) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2946655 · Cited by 238
Cited by
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694
Self-citationThe 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
Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009 · Cited by 1,469
Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies
Gächter, S., & Schulz, J. F. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17160 · Cited by 551
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
- Gneezy, U.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2005-02-01
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 384-394
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063855068
- Cited by
- 1,729
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 70.00
- 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: Deception: The Role of Consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/0002828053828662
- The paper
- Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The Role of Consequences. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828662
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.
