arbiter
JournalsAccount

Experimental Economics

Unknown author

Experimental Economics2025https://doi.org/10.1007/10683.1573-6938paratext
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.43

Abstract

We experimentally investigate the relationship between (un)kind actions and subsequent deception in a two-player, two-stage game.The first stage involves a dictator game.In the second-stage, the recipient in the dictator game has the opportunity to lie to her counterpart.We study how the fairness of dictator-game outcomes affects subsequent lying decisions where lying hurts one's counterpart.In doing so, we examine whether the moral cost of lying varies when retaliating against unkind actions is financially beneficial for the self (selfish lies), as opposed to being costly (spiteful lies).We find evidence that individuals engage in deception to reciprocate unkind behavior: The smaller the payoff received in the first stage, the higher the lying rate.Intention-based reciprocity largely drives behavior, as individuals use deception to punish unkind behavior and truth-telling to reward kind behavior.For selfish lies, individuals have a moral cost of lying.However, for spiteful lies, we find no evidence for such costs.Taken together, our data show a moral cost of lying that is not fixed but instead context-dependent.

3 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/10683.1573-6938

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{unknown2025,
  title        = {{Experimental Economics}},
  author       = {Unknown author},
  journal      = {Experimental Economics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/10683.1573-6938},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Experimental Economics

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.43

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.