The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preferences for Truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within Individuals
Open accessAbstract
We conduct an experiment assessing the extent to which people trade off the economic costs of truthfulness against the intrinsic costs of lying. The results allow us to reject a type-based model. People's preferences for truthfulness do not identify them as only either “economic types” (who care only about consequences) or “ethical types” (who care only about process). Instead, we find that preferences for truthfulness are heterogeneous among individuals. Moreover, when examining possible sources of intrinsic costs of lying and their interplay with economic costs of truthfulness, we find that preferences for truthfulness are also heterogeneous within individuals.
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
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach
Wooldridge, J. M. (1999) · Cited by 14,346
A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355399556151 · Cited by 11,264
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 · Cited by 5,965
A Review of the Earnings Management Literature and Its Implications for Standard Setting
Healy, P. M., & Wahlen, J. M. (1999) · Accounting Horizons · doi:10.2308/acch.1999.13.4.365 · Cited by 4,623
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475
Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 · Cited by 3,013
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
CEO incentives and earnings management
Bergstresser, D. B. (2004) · Cited by 2,392
Cited by
Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling
Rosenbaum, S. M., Billinger, S., & Stieglitz, N. (2014) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2014.10.002 · Cited by 288
Dellavigna, S., List, J. A., Malmendier, U., & Rao, G. (2017) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdw056 · Cited by 285
Schwardmann, P., & van der Weele, J. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7 · Cited by 215
Motivated Bayesians: Feeling Moral While Acting Egoistically
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Weber, R. A. (2016) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.30.3.189 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibson, R., Tanner, C., & Wagner, A. F.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2013-02-01
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 532-548
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042361695
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 51.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Preferences for Truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within Individuals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/aer.103.1.532
- The paper
- Gibson, R., Tanner, C., & Wagner, A. F. (2013). Preferences for Truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within Individuals. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.532
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.
