Deception and self-deception

Abstract

There is ample evidence that the average person thinks he or she is more skilful, more beautiful and kinder than others1,2 and that such overconfidence may result in substantial personal and social costs3,4,5,6,7,8. To explain the prevalence of overconfidence, social scientists usually point to its affective benefits, such as those stemming from a good self-image or reduced anxiety about an uncertain future9,10,11,12,13. An alternative theory, first advanced by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers14,15,16, posits that people self-deceive into higher confidence to more effectively persuade or deceive others. Here we conduct two experiments (combined n = 688) to test this strategic self-deception hypothesis. After performing a cognitively challenging task, half of our subjects are informed that they can earn money if, during a short face-to-face interaction, they convince others of their superior performance. We find that the privately elicited beliefs of the group that was informed of the profitable deception opportunity exhibit significantly more overconfidence than the beliefs of the control group. To test whether higher confidence ultimately pays off, we experimentally manipulate the confidence of the subjects by means of a noisy feedback signal. We find that this exogenous shift in confidence makes subjects more persuasive in subsequent face-to-face interactions. Overconfidence emerges from these results as the product of an adaptive cognitive technology with important social benefits, rather than some deficiency or bias.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Prior beliefs of participants in treatment and control groups.
Fig. 2: Histograms of posterior beliefs for those not in the top 2 and those in the top 2.

Data availability

We report that all of the experimental data and all of the experimental conditions performed in this research project are included in the paper and its Supplementary Information. All data and codes to reproduce the analysis are available from the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/k6hy5).

Code availability

Our STATA Do-file for the data analysis is downloadable from the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/k6hy5.

References

  1. 1.

    Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: what they are and what they do. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 1–48 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Baumeister, R. F. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Gilbert, D. et al.) (McGraw-Hill, 1998).

  3. 3.

    Barber, B. M. & Odean, T. Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Q. J. Econ. 116, 261–292 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Glaser, M. & Weber, M. Overconfidence and trading volume. Geneva Risk Insur. Rev. 32, 1–36 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Biais, B., Hilton, D., Mazurier, K. & Pouget, S. Judgemental overconfidence, self-monitoring, and trading performance in an experimental financial market. Rev. Econ. Stud. 72, 287–312 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Malmendier, U. & Tate, G. Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction. J. Financ. Econ. 89, 20–43 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. & Schade, C. ‘I think I can, I think I can’: overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 28, 502–527 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dawson, C., de Meza, D., Henley, A. & Arabsheibani, G. R. The Power of (Non) Positive Thinking: Self-employed Pessimists earn more than Optimists IZA Discussion Paper No. 9242 (Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study, 2015).

  9. 9.

    Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol. Bull. 103, 193–210 (1988).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Brunnermeier, M. K. & Parker, J. A. Optimal expectations. Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 1092–1118 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Köszegi, B. Ego utility, overconfidence, and task choice. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 4, 673–707 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bénabou, R. Groupthink: collective delusions in organizations and markets. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80, 429–462 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Trivers, R. in Social Evolution 395–420 (Benjamin/Cummings, 1985).

  15. 15.

    Trivers, R. The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life (Basic Books, 2011).

  16. 16.

    Von Hippel, W. & Trivers, R. The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 1–16 (2011).

  17. 17.

    Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S. & Camerer, C. F. Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. Am. Econ. Rev. 85, 1337–1343 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Konow, J. Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 1072–1091 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Di Tella, R., Pérez-Truglia, R., Babino, A. & Sigman, M. Conveniently upset: avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3416–3442 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. Mindful economics: the production, consumption, and value of beliefs. J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 141–164 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gino, F., Norton, M. I. & Weber, R. A. Motivated Bayesians: feeling moral while acting egoistically. J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 189–212 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A. & Kennedy, J. A. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 718–735 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L. & Rustichini, A. Overconfidence and social signalling. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80, 949–983 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ewers, M. & Zimmermann, F. Image and misreporting. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 13, 363–380 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Charness, G., Rustichini, A. & van de Ven, J. Self-confidence and strategic behavior. Exp. Econ. 21, 72–98 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Thoma, C. Under- versus overconfidence: an experiment on how others perceive a biased self-assessment. Exp. Econ. 19, 218–239 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Smith, M. K., Trivers, R. & von Hippel, W. Self-deception facilitates interpersonal persuasion. J. Econ. Psychol. 63, 93–101 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Keren, G. & Teigen, K. H. Why is p = .90 better than p = .70? Preference for definitive predictions by lay consumers of probability judgments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8, 191–202 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Brewer, N. & Burke, A. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum. Behav. 26, 353–364 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Radzevick, J. R. & Moore, D. A. Competing to be certain (but wrong): market dynamics and excessive confidence in judgment. Manage. Sci. 57, 93–106 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tenney, E. R., Meikle, N. L., Hunsaker, D., Moore, D. A. & Anderson, C. Is overconfidence a social liability? The effect of verbal versus nonverbal expressions of confidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 396–415 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A. & DeGrassi, S. W. What you see may not be what you get: relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1394–1411 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sedikides, C., Hoorens, V. & Dufner, M. in Self-concept, Motivation and Identity: Underpinning Success with Research and Practice (eds Guay, F. et al.) 29–55 (Information Age Publishing, 2015).

  34. 34.

    Lamba, S. & Nityananda, V. Self-deceived individuals are better at deceiving others. PLoS One 9, e104562 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Drago, F. Self-esteem and earnings. J. Econ. Psychol. 32, 480–488 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    de Araujo, P. & Lagos, S. Self-esteem, education, and wages revisited. J. Econ. Psychol. 34, 120–132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kaniel, R., Massey, C. & Robinson, D. T. The Importance of Being an Optimist: Evidence from Labor Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 16328 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010).

  38. 38.

    Möbius, M. M. & Rosenblat, T. S. Why beauty matters. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 222–235 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Belot, M. & Van de Ven, J. How private is private information? The ability to spot deception in an economic game. Exp. Econ. 20, 19–43 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Aronson, E. & Mettee, D. R. Dishonest behavior as a function of differential levels of induced self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9, 121–127 (1968).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H. & Marschak, J. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9, 226–232 (1964).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Schlag, K. H., Tremewan, J. & an der Weele, J. J.. A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Exp. Econ. 18, 457–490 (2015).

  43. 43.

    DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C. & Peterson, J. B. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 880–896 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 32, 88–106 (1969).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M. & Rosenthal, R. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 14 (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 1–59 (Academic, 1981).

  46. 46.

    McKay, R. T. & Dennett, D. C. The evolution of misbelief. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 493–510 (2009).

  47. 47.

    Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 57–74 (2011).

  48. 48.

    Greiner, B. An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forsch. Wiss. Rechn. 63, 79–93 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Fischbacher, U. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 10, 171–178 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Gibson, R., Tanner, C. & Wagner, A. F. Preferences for truthfulness: heterogeneity among and within individuals. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 532–548 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.S. and J.v.d.W. acknowledge support from the German Science Foundation (DFG) through grant CRC TR190. J.v.d.W. acknowledges support from the Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO) through a personal VIDI grant (452-17-004). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We thank K. Barron, T. Buser, S. Chassang, A. Coutts, B. Enke, B. Kőszegi, Y. Le Yaouanq, G. Loewenstein, J. Maier, D. de Meza, T. Murooka, K. Schmidt, P. Seabright, J. van de Ven, A. Wuppermann, F. Zimmermann and several seminar audiences for helpful comments. J. Hannane provided research assistance.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P.S. and J.v.d.W. conducted the experiments and contributed to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the paper in equal parts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Schwardmann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Tables 1–7, Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwardmann, P., van der Weele, J. Deception and self-deception. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1055–1061 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7

Download citation

Further reading