Truth-Telling: A Representative Assessment

A central assumption of the canonical cheap talk literature is that people misreport their private information if this is to their material benefit. Recent evidence from laboratory experiments with student subjects suggests, however, that while many people do report the payoff-maximizing outcome, some report their private information truthfully or at least do not lie maximally. We measure truth-telling outside the laboratory by calling a representative sample of the German population at home. In our setup, participants have a strong monetary incentive to misreport, misreporting cannot be detected, and reputational concerns are negligible. Yet, we find that aggregate reporting behavior closely follows the expected truthful distribution. Our results underline the importance of lying costs and raise questions regarding the influence of the decision-making environment and the elicitation mode on reporting behavior.

[1]  F. A. Hayek The American Economic Review , 2007 .

[2]  Navin Kartik,et al.  Strategic Communication with Lying Costs , 2009 .

[3]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Lies in Disguise. An experimental study on cheating , 2013 .

[4]  J. Sobel,et al.  Selecting Cheap‐Talk Equilibria , 2008 .

[5]  Raúl López-Pérez The power of words: A model of honesty and fairness , 2012 .

[6]  Armin Falk,et al.  Do Lab Experiments Misrepresent Social Preferences? The Case of Self-Selected Student Samples , 2013 .

[7]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism , 2019, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics.

[8]  J. Heckman,et al.  Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[9]  J. Tirole,et al.  Incentives and Prosocial Behavior , 2005 .

[10]  Nina Mazar,et al.  The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance , 2008 .

[11]  Michel J. J. Handgraaf,et al.  Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior , 2011 .

[12]  Uri Gneezy,et al.  Deception: The Role of Consequences , 2005 .

[13]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  The Promise and Success of Lab-Field Generalizability in Experimental Economics: A Critical Reply to Levitt and List , 2011 .

[14]  Navin Kartik,et al.  Credulity, Lies, and Costly Talk , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[15]  Jan Stoop,et al.  From the Lab to the Field: Cooperation among Fishermen , 2012, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  Daniel Houser,et al.  Fairness and Cheating , 2011 .

[17]  A. Shariff,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game , 2022 .

[18]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Gender differences in deception , 2008 .

[19]  T. Offerman,et al.  Money Talks? An Experimental Investigation of Cheap Talk and Burned Money , 2015 .

[20]  J. Sobel,et al.  STRATEGIC INFORMATION TRANSMISSION , 1982 .

[21]  George A. Akerlof,et al.  Economics and Identity , 2000 .

[22]  Marta Serra-Garcia,et al.  Lying About What You Know or About What You Do? , 2011 .

[23]  A. Falk,et al.  Testosterone Administration Reduces Lying in Men , 2012, PloS one.

[24]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  Promises and Partnership , 2006 .

[25]  Rupert Sausgruber,et al.  Honesty on the Streets. A Field Study on Newspaper Purchasing , 2013 .

[26]  Marco Piovesan,et al.  Luck or Cheating? A Field Experiment on Honesty with Children , 2008 .

[27]  Rene Saran,et al.  Bilateral trading with naive traders , 2011, Games Econ. Behav..

[28]  Raúl López-Pérez Guilt and shame: an axiomatic analysis , 2010 .

[29]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications , 2006 .

[30]  J. Tirole,et al.  Identity, morals, and taboos: beliefs as assets. , 2011, The quarterly journal of economics.