Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adding a third-party player in the sender-receiver deception game

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Does adding a third-party player influence the tendency to lie? Lies often affect more than just two parties. The sender is often not the only beneficiary of the lie, and the receiver is often not the only person harmed. In this paper, we study the effect of introducing an uninvolved third party on people’s tendency to behave dishonestly. This research adapts the cheap-talk game to investigate the effect of introducing a third-party beneficiary and a third-party victim. That is, in addition to the sender and the receiver in the original game, we introduce another player who does not know the payoff structure and does not make any decisions. This third-party player’s payoff can differ across payment options: the third-party can be a victim, a neutral third-party, or a beneficiary of the lie. We show that people’s decision about whether to lie depends on the payoff split between the sender and the receiver, as well as the payoff to the third party. Moreover, we find that people show a greater sensitivity to the presence of a third-party beneficiary than to the presence of a third-party victim. Specifically, our results indicate that adding a third-party beneficiary increases one’s tendency to lie; introducing a third-party victim, though, does not lower the tendency. When both a beneficiary and victim are introduced, the beneficiary dominates the victim, so the inclination to lie rises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Amir, A., Kogut, T., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2016). Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 00371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, V. (2018). Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(4), 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chytilová, J. K., & Václav (2014). Individual and group cheating behavior: A field experiment with adolescents. IES Working Paper. Charles University in Prague, Institute of Economic Studies (IES).

  • Clinton, W. J. (1998). Address to the nation on testimony before the independent counsel’s grand jury. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (Book II, pp. 1457–1458).

  • CoalitionAgainstInsuranceFraud (2017). By the numbers: fraud statistics. Retrieved from Washington, DC: https://www.insurancefraud.org/statistics.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.

  • Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Marechal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R. M., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleophas, T. J., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2012). Trend-Testing. In Statistics Applied to Clinical Studies (pp. 313-318). Springer.

  • Debey, E., De Schryver, M., Logan, G. D., Suchotzki, K., & Verschuere, B. (2015). From junior to senior Pinocchio: A cross-sectional lifespan investigation of deception. Acta Psychologica, 160, 58–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Kirkendol, S. E., & Boden, J. M. (2004). Serious lies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(2–3), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 703–716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1992). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. WW Norton & Company, New York.

  • Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K., & Hertwig, R. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2011). Lying to level the playing field: Why people may dishonestly help or hurt others to create equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(S1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., Imas, A., & Madarász, K. (2014). Conscience accounting: Emotion dynamics and social behavior. Management Science, 60(11), 2645–2658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., Rockenbach, B., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2013). Measuring lying aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. L., Curtis, D. A., Williams, N. M., Hathaway, M. D., & Griffith, J. D. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: Benevolent deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, 1–6.

  • Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 23–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jago, A. S., Kreps, T. A., & Laurin, K. (2019). Collectives in organizations appear less morally motivated than individuals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2229–2244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, M. G., Schudy, S., & Spantig, L. (2018). I lie? We lie! Why? Experimental evidence on a dishonesty shift in groups. Management Science, 64(9), 3995–4008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marett, L. K., & George, J. F. (2004). Deception in the case of one sender and multiple receivers. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, L. M., Edmondson, D. R., & Ward, C. B. (2021). Are women or men business-to-business salespeople more engaged on the job? Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 28(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Aggarwal, P. (2011). Greasing the palm: can collectivism promote bribery? Psychological Science, 22(7), 843–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 594–597.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, S., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). When better is worse: Envy and the use of deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlheusser, G., Roider, A., & Wallmeier, N. (2015). Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals. Economics Letters, 128, 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, A. (2020). The individual aspect of interorganizational cooperation: Favor-based cooperation. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(3), 221–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., & Rhee, S. Y. (2020). Emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviour in Korea: The mediating effect of social networks. Asian Journal of Business Research, 10(3), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Ezama, D., Fosgaard, T. R., Cardenas, J. C., Kujal, P., Veszteg, R., Gil-Gómez de Liaño, & Brañas-Garza, B. (2015). P. Context-dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 379–386.

  • Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sakamoto, K., Laine, T., & Farber, I. (2013). Deciding whether to deceive: Determinants of the choice between deceptive and honest communication. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 392–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M. E., & Hsee, C. K. (2002). Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(2), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalvi, S., Handgraa, M. J. J., & Dreu, C. K. W. D. (2011). People avoid situations that enable them to deceive others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1096–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalvi, S., & Leiser, D. (2013). Moral firmness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 400–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter. (2009). Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams. The Economic Journal, 119(534), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, L. L., & Gino, F. (2012). Sweeping dishonesty under the rug: how unethical actions lead to forgetting of moral rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1164–1177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, H. L. (2020). Does organization inclusion matter in expatriate mission accomplishment? Asian Journal of Business Research, 10(3), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). How much does honesty cost? Small bonuses can motivate ethical behavior. Management Science, 63(9), 2903–2914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisel, O., & Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(34), 10651–10656.

  • Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Zhang, D., & Sung, Y. W. (2013). The effects of group factors on deception detection performance. Small Group Research, 44(3), 272–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71925005, 71672169), Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China Grant (20YJCZH189) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (JBK22YJ54).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China

    Xiling Xiong

  2. National University of Singapore Business School, Singapore, Singapore

    Yan Zhang

  3. School of Management, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, China

    Xinyue Zhou

Authors
  1. Xiling Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xinyue Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinyue Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The procedure performed in this study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors whose names are listed below certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(19.6 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiong, X., Zhang, Y. & Zhou, X. Adding a third-party player in the sender-receiver deception game. Curr Psychol 42, 28700–28713 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03928-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03928-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation