,
11 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
🚨New WP (theory + experiment): lying & belief distortion under norm-uncertainty🚨
w/ @cbicchieri (@Penn) & Sonderegger (@CeDEx)
RQ: how do we engage in deviant behavior when social #norms are uncertain?
A: self-serving belief distortion
Paper: bit.ly/2Go0tJk
Thread ⬇
w/ @cbicchieri (@Penn) & Sonderegger (@CeDEx)
RQ: how do we engage in deviant behavior when social #norms are uncertain?
A: self-serving belief distortion
Paper: bit.ly/2Go0tJk
Thread ⬇
1/
Known:
◈ #Lies are ubiquitous & people often lie for their own benefit or for others (@UriGneezy et al., 2018 AER, Abeler et al., 2019 Ecta)
◈ Reasons (not) to lie: ethical dissonance, image concerns...
--> we take a complementary approach: norm-following considerations
Known:
◈ #Lies are ubiquitous & people often lie for their own benefit or for others (@UriGneezy et al., 2018 AER, Abeler et al., 2019 Ecta)
◈ Reasons (not) to lie: ethical dissonance, image concerns...
--> we take a complementary approach: norm-following considerations
2/
Existing scientific approach to the study of norms:
◈ Clearly define norms and study how individuals react (tradition of @RobertCialdini, @CBicchieri, Fehr & others)
◈ Find: social norms motivate and affect personal decisions, even when they are not in our own self-interest
Existing scientific approach to the study of norms:
◈ Clearly define norms and study how individuals react (tradition of @RobertCialdini, @CBicchieri, Fehr & others)
◈ Find: social norms motivate and affect personal decisions, even when they are not in our own self-interest
3/
Reality:
◈ Inherent uncertainty wrt to the application or interpretation of norms (think of fairness
Dilemma:
◈ inherent uncertainties facilitate “choosing what to believe” (motivated reasoning) & form beliefs based on previous experiences or shared cultural narratives
Reality:
◈ Inherent uncertainty wrt to the application or interpretation of norms (think of fairness
Dilemma:
◈ inherent uncertainties facilitate “choosing what to believe” (motivated reasoning) & form beliefs based on previous experiences or shared cultural narratives
4/n
Questions that we address with theory & series of experiments:
◈ when and how do individuals engage in self-serving belief distortion as a justification for lying?
◈ How is this mechanism affected by variations in the uncertainty about the state of the world wrt norms?
Questions that we address with theory & series of experiments:
◈ when and how do individuals engage in self-serving belief distortion as a justification for lying?
◈ How is this mechanism affected by variations in the uncertainty about the state of the world wrt norms?
5/n
◈ The theoretical foundation based on the plethora of work by Benabou + Tirole and grounded in social norms theory of @CBicchieri (see earlier tweet)
◈ Basic idea: derive motivation for belief distortion for various 'types' of (un)conditional liars
◈ The theoretical foundation based on the plethora of work by Benabou + Tirole and grounded in social norms theory of @CBicchieri (see earlier tweet)
◈ Basic idea: derive motivation for belief distortion for various 'types' of (un)conditional liars
6/
◈ Theory allows us to derive testable hypotheses wrt to who distorts which beliefs & when -> helps us to derive a model of social image contrasting existing work
◈ Insight: some beliefs are more likely to be manipulated than others based on their role in defining a norm
◈ Theory allows us to derive testable hypotheses wrt to who distorts which beliefs & when -> helps us to derive a model of social image contrasting existing work
◈ Insight: some beliefs are more likely to be manipulated than others based on their role in defining a norm
7/
Experiment:
◈ 2-stage variant of a lying paradigm, in which subjects’ beliefs (normative or empirical) are elicited in stage 1 before performing the task in stage 2
◈ Core manipulation: vary whether one is (i) aware or (ii) unaware of the upcoming opportunity to lie
Experiment:
◈ 2-stage variant of a lying paradigm, in which subjects’ beliefs (normative or empirical) are elicited in stage 1 before performing the task in stage 2
◈ Core manipulation: vary whether one is (i) aware or (ii) unaware of the upcoming opportunity to lie
8/
Paper contains several nuanced results, but main insight:
◈ Belief manipulation happens and takes the form of people convincing themselves that lying behavior is widespread
◈ Individual distort descriptive but not injunctive beliefs --> reason: differential signaling
Paper contains several nuanced results, but main insight:
◈ Belief manipulation happens and takes the form of people convincing themselves that lying behavior is widespread
◈ Individual distort descriptive but not injunctive beliefs --> reason: differential signaling
9/
This leads to:
◈ self-serving beliefs that 'majority lies' when the cheating opportunity is known vs. unknown (top panel in figure)
◈ translates into more cheating overall (bottom panel in figure)
Policy insight: sending unambiguous norm information is key!
This leads to:
◈ self-serving beliefs that 'majority lies' when the cheating opportunity is known vs. unknown (top panel in figure)
◈ translates into more cheating overall (bottom panel in figure)
Policy insight: sending unambiguous norm information is key!
10/
Why should you care?
Social image model a' la @UriGneezy et al. delivers different predictions to our norm-based model. Intuitively, we predict that conditional agents are more inclined to lie when they believe lying to be common, the social image model yields the opposite
Why should you care?
Social image model a' la @UriGneezy et al. delivers different predictions to our norm-based model. Intuitively, we predict that conditional agents are more inclined to lie when they believe lying to be common, the social image model yields the opposite
