Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show

References

• Abeler J, Becker A, Falk A (2014) Representative evidence on lying costs. J. Public Econom. 113:96–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abeler J, Nosenzo D, Raymond C (2019) Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Antonovics K, Arcidiacono P, Walsh R (2005) Games and discrimination: Lessons from the weakest link. J. Human Resources 40(4):918–947.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battigalli P, Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2013) Deception: The role of guilt. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:227–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beetsma RMWJ, Schotman PC (2001) Measuring risk attitudes in a natural experiment: Data from the television game show Lingo. Econom. J. 111(474):821–848.Google Scholar
• Belot M, Bhaskar V, van de Ven J (2010) Promises and cooperation: Evidence from a TV game show. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 73(3):396–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belot M, Bhaskar V, van de Ven J (2012) Can observers predict trustworthiness? Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(1):246–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennett RW, Hickman KA (1993) Rationality and ‘the price is right’. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 21(1):99–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berk JB, Hughson E, Vandezande K (1996) The Price Is Right, but are the bids? An investigation of rational decision theory. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(4):954–970.Google Scholar
• Brosig J (2002) Identifying cooperative behavior: Some experimental results in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 47(3):275–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Sorensen EO, Tungodden B (2013) When do we lie? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93:258–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Capraro V (2018) Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis. Judgment Decision Making 13(4):345–355.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6):1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2010) Bare promises: An experiment. Econom. Lett. 107(2):281–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Childs J (2012) Gender differences in lying. Econom. Lett. 114(2):147–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB (1984) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Harper Collins, New York).Google Scholar
• Dawes RM, McTavish J, Shaklee H (1977) Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 35(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psych. Bull. 129(1):74–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dreber A, Johannesson M (2008) Gender differences in deception. Econom. Lett. 99(1):197–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ederer F, Stremitzer A (2017) Promises and expectations. Games Econom. Behav. 106:161–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ekman P (2001) Telling lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (W.W. Norton, New York).Google Scholar
• Ellingsen T, Johannesson M (2004) Promises, threats and fairness. Econom. J. 114(495):397–420.Google Scholar
• Erat S, Gneezy U (2012) White lies. Management Sci. 58(4):723–733.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2017) Consistency as a signal of skills. Management Sci. 63(7):2197–2210.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2018) Information processing and commitment. Econom. J. 128(613):1983–2002.Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Rabin M (1996) Cheap talk. J. Econom. Perspect. 10(3):103–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econom. Lett. 71(3):397–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank RH, Gilovich T, Regan DT (1993) The evolution of one-shot cooperation: An experiment. Ethology Sociobiol. 14(4):247–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey BS, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing ‘conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(5):1717–1722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gertner R (1993) Game shows and economic behavior: Risk-taking on Card Sharks. Quart. J. Econom. 108(2):507–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U (2005) Deception: The role of consequences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(1):384–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gylfason HF, Arnardottir AA, Kristinsson K (2013) More on gender differences in lying. Econom. Lett. 119(1):94–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartley R, Lanot G, Walker I (2014) Who really wants to be a millionaire? Estimates of risk aversion from gameshow data. J. Appl. Econometrics 29(6):861–879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He S, Offerman T, van de Ven J (2017) The sources of the communication gap. Management Sci. 63(9):2832–2846.Link, Google Scholar
• Hilbig BE, Hessler CM (2013) What lies beneath: How the distance between truth and lie drives dishonesty. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 49(2):263–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khalmetski K, Rockenbach B, Werner P (2017) Evasive lying in strategic communication. J. Public Econom. 156:59–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein N, Epley N (2015) Group discussion improves lie detection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(24):7460–7465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD (2004) Testing theories of discrimination: Evidence from weakest link. J. Law Econom. 47(2):431–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2004) Young, selfish and male: Field evidence of social preferences. Econom. J. 114(492):121–149.Google Scholar
• List JA (2006) Friend or foe? A natural experiment of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Rev. Econom, Statist. 88(3):463–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lundquist T, Ellingsen T, Gribbe E, Johannesson M (2009) The aversion to lying. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 70:81–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Marketing Res. 45(6):633–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metrick A (1995) A natural experiment in Jeopardy! Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(1):240–253.Google Scholar
• Oberholzer-Gee F, Waldfogel J, White MW (2010) Friend or foe? Cooperation and learning in high-stakes games. Rev. Econom. Statist. 92(1):179–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pittarello A, Leib M, Gordon-Hecker T, Shalvi S (2015) Justifications shape ethical blind spots. Psych. Sci. 26(6):794–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post T, van den Assem MJ, Baltussen G, Thaler RH (2008) Deal or No Deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(1):38–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A (1988) Experiments with N-person social traps I: Prisoner’s Dilemma, Weak Prisoner’s Dilemma, Volunteer’s Dilemma, and Largest Number. J. Conflict Resolution 32(3):457–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schweitzer ME, Hsee CK (2002) Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. J. Risk Uncertainty 25(2):185–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serra-Garcia M, van Damme E, Potters J (2011) Hiding an inconvenient truth: Lies and vagueness. Games Econom. Behav. 73(1):244–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shalvi S, Dana J, Handgraaf MJJ, De Dreu CKW (2011) Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 115(2):181–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sporer SL, Schwandt B (2007) Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psych. Public Policy Law 13(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spranca M, Minsk E, Baron J (1991) Omission and commission in judgment and choice. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 27(1):76–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sylwester K, Lyons M, Buchanan C, Nettle D, Roberts G (2012) The role of theory of mind in assessing cooperative intentions. Personality Individual Differences 52(2):113–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tenorio R, Cason TN (2002) To spin or not to spin? Natural and laboratory experiments from The Price Is Right. Econom. J. 112(476):170–195.Google Scholar
• Vanberg C (2008) Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 76(6):1467–1480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van den Assem MJ, van Dolder D, Thaler RH (2012) Split or steal? Cooperative behavior when the stakes are large. Management Sci. 58(1):2–20.Link, Google Scholar
• van Dolder D, van den Assem MJ, Camerer CF, Thaler RH (2015) Standing united or falling divided? High stakes bargaining in a TV game show. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):402–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vrij A (2008) Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK).Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2003) Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(2):133–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman M, DePaulo BM, Rosenthal R (1981) Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 14 (Elsevier, New York), 1–59.Google Scholar