Experimental Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 130–155 | Cite as

Clever enough to tell the truth

  • Bradley J. RuffleEmail author
  • Yossef Tobol
Original Paper


We conduct a field experiment on 427 Israeli soldiers who each rolled a six-sided die in private and reported the outcome. For every point reported, the soldier received an additional half-hour early release from the army base on Thursday afternoon. We find that the higher a soldier’s military entrance score, the more honest he is on average. We replicate this finding on a sample of 156 civilians paid in cash for their die reports. Furthermore, the civilian experiments reveal that two measures of cognitive ability predict honesty, whereas general self-report honesty questions and a consistency check among them are of no value. We provide a rationale for the relationship between cognitive ability and honesty and discuss its generalizability.


Honesty Cognitive ability Soldiers High non-monetary stakes 

JEL Codes

C93 M51 



We thank Johannes Abeler, Yuval Arbel, Ofer Azar, Ronen Bar-El, Bram Cadsby, Danny Cohen-Zada, Leif Danziger, Nadja Dwenger, Naomi Feldman, Lan Guo, Shachar Kariv, Jonathan Mamujee, Mattia Pavoni, Chet Robie, Tata Pyatigorsky-Ruffle, Jonathan Schulz, Ze’ev Shtudiner, Justin Smith, Fei Song, Michal Kolodner-Tobol, Ro’i Zultan, an editor of this journal, David Cooper, two anonymous referees and numerous seminar participants for helpful comments. We also are grateful to Capt. Sivan Levi and Meytal Sasson for research assistance, Capt. Itamar Cohen for facilitating the soldier experiments and all of the commanding officers for granting us access to their units. A preliminary version of this paper circulated under the title, “Screening for Honesty”.

Supplementary material

10683_2016_9479_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 190 kb)


  1. Abeler, J., Becker, A., & Falk, A. (2014). Representative evidence on lying costs. Journal of Public Economics, 113, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, W., & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven advanced progressive matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azar, O. H., Yosef, S., & Bar-Eli, M. (2013). Do customers return excessive change in a restaurant? A field experiment on dishonesty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, C. (2013). Employee theft on the rise and expected to get worse. Business News Daily, June 19, 2013, Retrieved from,
  5. Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 7745–7750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnerships. Econometrica, 74(6), 1579–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100(3), 1238–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99(1), 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise: An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fosgaard, T. R., Hansen, J. G., & Piovesan, M. (2013). Separating will from grace: An experiment on conformity and awareness in cheating. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2012). The impact of social ties on group interactions: Evidence from minimal groups and randomly assigned real groups. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(1), 101–115.Google Scholar
  16. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hao, L. & Houser, D. (2013). Perceptions, intentions, and cheating. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character, vol 1: Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Hugh-Jones, D. (2015). Way to measure honesty: A new experiment and two questionnaires. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (2002). The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2002 Daniel Kahneman, Vernon L. Smith. Retrieved from,
  21. Lahav, E., Benzion, U., & Shavit, T. (2011). The effect of military service on soldiers’ time preferences—Evidence from Israel. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(2), 130–138.Google Scholar
  22. Lerer, Z. (2009). Groups of quality: The social history of the IDF selection system. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  23. Levitt, S. D. (2006). White-collar crime writ small: A case study of bagels, donuts, and the honor system. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 96(2), 290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oechssler, J., Roider, A., & Schmitz, P. W. (2009). Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pruckner, G. J., & Sausgruber, R. (2013). Honesty on the streets: A natural field experiment on newspaper purchasing. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(3), 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raven, J. C. (1936). Mental tests used in genetic studies: the performance of related individuals on tests mainly educative and mainly reproductive. MSc Thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum, S. M., Billinger, S., & Stieglitz, N. (2014). Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruffle, B. J., & Tobol, Y. (2014). Honest on mondays: Honesty and the temporal distance between decisions and payoffs. European Economic Review, 65, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological Science, 23(10), 1264–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250(4988), 1665–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Unger, S. M. (1964). Relation between intelligence and socially-approved behavior: A methodological cautionary note. Child Development, 35(1), 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warner, J. T., & Pleeter, S. (2001). The personal discount rate: Evidence from military downsizing programs. American Economic Review, 33–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.School of ManagementJerusalem College of TechnologyJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.IZABonnGermany

Personalised recommendations