Gender Differences in Lying in Sender-receiver Games: A Meta-analysis

Capraro, Valerio. 2018. “Gender Differences in Lying in Sender-receiver Games: A Meta-analysis.” PsyArXiv. May 15. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/JAEWT

Abstract: Whether there are gender differences in lying has been largely debated in the past decade. Previous studies found mixed results. To shed light on this topic, here I report a meta-analysis of 8,728 distinct observations, collected in 65 Sender-Receiver game treatments, by 14 research groups. Following previous work, I distinguish three types of lies: black lies, that benefit the liar at a cost for another person; altruistic white lies, that benefit another person at a cost for the liar; Pareto white lies, that benefit both the liar and another person. I find that: (i) males are significantly more likely than females to tell black lies (N=4,161); (ii) males are significantly more likely than females to tell altruistic white (N=2,940); (iii) results are inconclusive in the case of Pareto white lies (N=1,627).

Compensation... As stakes rise, participants resist the temptation to cheat but they are giving less to charity. Donors who indicated that they felt more moral gave less in high stakes condition. See High stakes: A little more cheating, a lot less charity. Zoe Rahwan et al. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/06/what-if-any-hidden-costs-of-overcoming.html