Information asymmetry and deception

Situations such as an entrepreneur overstating a project's value, or a superior choosing to under or overstate the gains from a project to a subordinate are common and may result in acts of deception. In this paper we modify the standard investment game in the economics literature to study the nature of deception. In this game a trustor (investor) can send a given amount of money to a trustee (or investee). The amount received is multiplied by a certain amount, k, and the investee then decides on how to divide the total amount received. In our modified game the information on the multiplier, k, is known only to the investee and she can send a non-binding message to the investor regarding its value. We find that 66% of the investees send false messages with both under and over, statement being observed. Investors are naive and almost half of them believe the message received. We find greater lying when the distribution of the multiplier is unknown by the investors than when they know the distribution. Further, messages make beliefs about the multiplier more pessimistic when the investors know the distribution of the multiplier, while the opposite is true when they do not know the distribution.

[1]  A. Grabowska,et al.  Sex, Lies and fMRI—Gender Differences in Neural Basis of Deception , 2012, PloS one.

[2]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Disadvantageous lies in individual decisions , 2013 .

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

[4]  M. Dufwenberg,et al.  Working Papers in Economics and Statistics Deception through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence from Individuals and Teams Deception through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence from Individuals and Teams , 2022 .

[5]  Daniel Houser,et al.  Perceptions, intentions, and cheating , 2017 .

[6]  A. Raine,et al.  Prefrontal white matter in pathological liars. , 2005, The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science.

[7]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  Bare promises: An experiment , 2010 .

[8]  Grace Tang,et al.  White lies , 2012, Nature.

[9]  Navin Kartik,et al.  Would I lie to you? On social preferences and lying aversion , 2009 .

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

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

[12]  Joyce E. Berg,et al.  Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History , 1995 .

[13]  Marc Vorsatz,et al.  An experimental study of truth-telling in a sender-receiver game , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

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

[15]  Adrianna C. Jenkins,et al.  Damage To Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Affects Tradeoffs Between Honesty And Self-Interest , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[17]  Francesco Squintani,et al.  Naive audience and communication bias , 2006, Int. J. Game Theory.

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

[19]  Marc Vorsatz,et al.  Enjoy the silence: an experiment on truth-telling , 2009 .

[20]  Julian Rode,et al.  Truth and trust in communication: Experiments on the effect of a competitive context , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[21]  Timothy J Ziemlewicz,et al.  Neural correlates of telling lies: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study at 4 Tesla. , 2005, Academic radiology.