Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies


Deception is common in nature and humans are no exception1. Modern societies have created institutions to control cheating, but many situations remain where only intrinsic honesty keeps people from cheating and violating rules. Psychological2, sociological3 and economic theories4 suggest causal pathways to explain how the prevalence of rule violations in people’s social environment, such as corruption, tax evasion or political fraud, can compromise individual intrinsic honesty. Here we present cross-societal experiments from 23 countries around the world that demonstrate a robust link between the prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. We developed an index of the ‘prevalence of rule violations’ (PRV) based on country-level data from the year 2003 of corruption, tax evasion and fraudulent politics. We measured intrinsic honesty in an anonymous die-rolling experiment5. We conducted the experiments with 2,568 young participants (students) who, due to their young age in 2003, could not have influenced PRV in 2003. We find individual intrinsic honesty is stronger in the subject pools of low PRV countries than those of high PRV countries. The details of lying patterns support psychological theories of honesty6,7. The results are consistent with theories of the cultural co-evolution of institutions and values8, and show that weak institutions and cultural legacies9,10,11 that generate rule violations not only have direct adverse economic consequences, but might also impair individual intrinsic honesty that is crucial for the smooth functioning of society.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Distributions of reported die rolls.
Figure 2: Measures of honesty and the prevalence of rule violations in society.


  1. 1

    Trivers, R. L. Deceit and Self-deception: Fooling Yourself the Better to Fool Others (Penguin, 2014)

  2. 2

    Gino, F., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D. Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychol. Sci. 20, 393–398 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L. The spreading of disorder. Science 322, 1681–1685 (2008)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Hauk, E. & Saez-Marti, M. On the cultural transmission of corruption. J. Econ. Theory 107, 311–335 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Fischbacher, U. & Föllmi-Heusi, F. Lies in disguise—an experimental study on cheating. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 525–547 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Mark. Res. 45, 633–644 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Justified ethicality: observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115, 181–190 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Bowles, S. Is liberal society a parasite on tradition? Philos. Public Aff. 39, 46–81 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Greif, A. Cultural beliefs and the organization of society: a historical reflection on collectivist and individualist societies. J. Polit. Econ. 102, 912–950 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Mazar, N. & Aggarwal, P. Greasing the palm: can collectivism promote bribery? Psychol. Sci. 22, 843–848 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hruschka, D. et al. Impartial institutions, pathogen stress and the expanding social network. Hum. Nat. 25, 567–579 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Besley, T. & Persson, T. Pillars of Prosperity: the Political Economics of Development Clusters (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011)

  13. 13

    Heywood, P. M. Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption (Routledge, 2014)

  14. 14

    Tabellini, G. Institutions and culture. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 6, 255–294 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Henrich, J. & Boyd, R. The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evol. Hum. Behav. 19, 215–241 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Houser, D., Vetter, S. & Winter, J. Fairness and cheating. Eur. Econ. Rev. 56, 1645–1655 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Gintis, H. & Khurana, R. in Moral Markets: the Critical Role of Values in the Economy (ed. Zak, P. J. ) (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008)

  18. 18

    Crittenden, V., Hanna, R. & Peterson, R. Business students’ attitudes toward unethical behavior: a multi-country comparison. Mark. Lett. 20, 1–14 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Cohn, A., Fehr, E. & Marechal, M. A. Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature 516, 86–89 (2014)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Weisel, O. & Shalvi, S. The collaborative roots of corruption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10651–10656 (2015)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Henrich, J. & Gil-White, F. J. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 165–196 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Lefebvre, M., Pestieau, P., Riedl, A. & Villeval, M. Tax evasion and social information: an experiment in Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Int. Tax Public Finance 22, 401–425 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Tabellini, G. The scope of cooperation: values and incentives. Q. J. Econ. 123, 905–950 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Barr, A. & Serra, D. Corruption and culture: an experimental analysis. J. Public Econ. 94, 862–869 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Kimbrough, E. O. & Vostroknutov, A. Norms make preferences social. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. (2015)

  26. 26

    Peysakhovich, A. & Rand, D. G. Habits of virtue: creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Manage. Sci. (2015)

  27. 27

    Gneezy, U. Deception: the role of consequences. Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 384–394 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Abeler, J., Becker, A. & Falk, A. Representative evidence on lying costs. J. Public Econ. 113, 96–104 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Pascual-Ezama, D. et al. Context-dependent cheating: experimental evidence from 16 countries. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 116, 379–386 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Rosenbaum, S. M., Billinger, S. & Stieglitz, N. Let’s be honest: a review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling. J. Econ. Psychol. 45, 181–196 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank A. Arechar, A. Barr, B. Beranek, M. Eberhardt, E. von Essen, E. Fehr, U. Fischbacher, M. García-Vega, A. Greif, B. Herrmann, F. Kölle, L. Molleman, D. Rand, K. Schmelz, S. Shalvi, P. Thiemann, C. Thöni, O. Weisel and seminar audiences for comments. Support under ERC-AdG 295707 COOPERATION and the ESRC Network on Integrated Behavioural Science (NIBS, ES/K002201/1) is gratefully acknowledged. We thank numerous helpers (Supplementary Information) for their support in implementing the experiments.

Author information




S.G. and J.S. developed the research ideas and designed the study; J.S. conducted the experiment and analysed data. S.G. and J.S. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Simon Gächter or Jonathan F. Schulz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

The data and code for the statistical analyses are stored in Dryad Data package title Intrinsic Honesty across Societies,

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 The die-in-a-cup task.

Experiment following Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi5. Participants (n = 2,568 from 23 countries) were asked to roll the die twice in the cup and to report the first roll. Payment is according to reported roll, except that reporting a 6 earns 0 money units (across subject pools, money units in local currency are adjusted to equalize purchasing power). We used the same set of dice in all subject pools, and we also tested the dice for bias. The procedures followed established rules in cross-cultural experimental economics. See Supplementary Information for further details. This picture was taken by J.S. in the experimental laboratory of the University of Nottingham.

Extended Data Figure 2 Distribution of claims.

a, Distribution per subject pool. Subject pools are ordered by country PRV. The first 14 subject pools (in green) are from ‘low’ (below-average) PRV countries; the last 9 subject pools (in red) are from ‘high’ (above-average) PRV countries relative to the world sample of 159 countries. The horizontal line refers to the uniform distribution implied by honest reporting and the step function to the distribution implied by the justified dishonesty benchmark (JDB). For each subject pool, we report the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (KS) for discrete data in comparison with JDB (KSD is the KS d value). Asterisks above bars refer to binomial tests comparing the frequency of a particular claim with its predicted value under a uniform distribution. b, Cumulative distributions for pooled data from subject pools from low and high PRV countries, respectively. See Supplementary Information for further information. *P < 0.1, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01. Source data

Extended Data Figure 3 Association between indicators of institutional quality and intrinsic honesty as measured by mean claim.

The solid line is a linear fit. The JDB is indicated by a dashed line. Rho indicates Spearman rank order correlation coefficients. ad, Mean claim is negatively related to Government Effectiveness (a), Constraint on executive (b), ‘fairness of electoral process and participation’ (c) and Constraint on Executive (d) using the averages of the years 1890 to 1900 as a measure for distant institutional quality. See Extended Data Table 1 and Supplementary Information for data description, references and further analyses. Source data

Extended Data Figure 4 Association between cultural indicators and intrinsic honesty as measured by mean claim.

The solid line is a linear fit. The JDB is indicated by a dashed line. Rho indicates Spearman rank order correlation coefficients. ac, Mean claim is negatively related to individualism (a), traditional versus secular-rational values (b), and survival versus self-expression values (c). See Extended Data Table 1 and Supplementary Information for data description, references and further analyses. Source data

Extended Data Table 1 Measures of prevalence of rule violations, economic and institutional variables, as well as cultural background of our subject pools
Extended Data Table 2 Regression analysis of societal and individual determinants of dishonesty
Extended Data Table 3 Institutional and cultural determinants of PRV

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Analysis, additional references, Human subjects Approval and Acknowledgements. (PDF 2559 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gächter, S., Schulz, J. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531, 496–499 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.