Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nwwvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-16T12:38:23.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How an interdisciplinary study of societies can develop a comprehensive understanding of the function of deceptive behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

Panagiotis Mitkidis Open the ORCID record for Panagiotis Mitkidis [Opens in a new window]
Panagiotis Mitkidis*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus V, Denmark [email protected] https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/panagiotis-mitkidis(ca495362-7cd4-473c-99a9-aad26088e872).html
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Moffett presents a robust proposal for a comparative study of societies as the basis for studying the human condition and behavior. This theoretical framework has implications for the study of deceptive behavior. I discuss how this framework might describe the adaptation of deceptive behavior within human societies and shed light on the dynamics of collaborative deceptive behavior through interpersonal commitment.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e67
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, M. W., Bettinger, R. L., Codding, B. F., Jones, T. L., & Schwitalla, A. W. (2016). Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12120–12125.Google ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belmi, P., Barragan, R. C., Neale, M. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2015). Threats to social identity can trigger social deviance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorrough, A. R., Köbis, N., Irlenbusch, B., Shalvi, S., & Glöckner, A. (2023). Conditional bribery: Insights from incentivized experiments across 18 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(18), e2209731120.Google ScholarPubMed
Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Factor, R., Kawachi, I., & Williams, D. R. (2011). Understanding high-risk behavior among non-dominant minorities: A social resistance framework. Social Science & Medicine, 73(9), 1292–1301.Google ScholarPubMed
Gächter, S., & Schulz, J. F. (2016). Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature, 531(7595), 496–499.Google ScholarPubMed
Galak, J., & Critcher, C. R. (2023). Who sees which political falsehoods as more acceptable and why: A new look at in-group loyalty and trustworthiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(3), 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holan, A. D. (2015). All politicians lie. Some lie more than others. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.htmlGoogle Scholar
Karg, S. T., Kim, M., Mitkidis, P., & Young, L. (2023). Collaborative cheating in hierarchical teams: Effects of incentive structure and leader behavior on subordinate behavior and perceptions of leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(8), 1166–1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNally, L., & Jackson, A. L. (2013). Cooperation creates selection for tactical deception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1762), 20130699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Why leaders lie: The truth about lying in international politics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michael, J., & Sebanz, N. (2016). The sense of commitment: A minimal approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 162497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitkidis, P., Sørensen, J., Nielbo, K. L., Andersen, M., & Lienard, P. (2013). Collective-goal ascription increases cooperation in humans. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64776.Google ScholarPubMed
Mitkidis, P., Perkovic, S., Nichols, A., Elbæk, C. T., Gerlach, P., & Ariely, D. (2023). Morality in minimally deceptive environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 30(1), 48–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Pascual-Ezama, D., Fosgaard, T. R., Cardenas, J. C., Kujal, P., Veszteg, R., de Liaño, B. G. G., … Branas-Garza, P. (2015). Context-dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 379–386.Google Scholar
Sarkadi, Ş., Rutherford, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Rahwan, I. (2021). The evolution of deception. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9), 201032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thielmann, I., Böhm, R., & Hilbig, B. E. (2021). Buying unethical loyalty: A behavioral paradigm and empirical test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 363–370.Google Scholar
Tønnesen, M. H., Elbæk, C. T., Pfattheicher, S., & Mitkidis, P. (2024). Communication increases collaborative corruption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 112, 104603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, L., & Finch, G. (2017) Libor scandal: The bankers who fixed the world's most important number. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/18/libor-scandal-the-bankers-who-fixed-the-worlds-most-important-numberGoogle Scholar
Weisel, O., & Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(34), 10651–10656.Google Scholar
Zickfeld, J. H., Karg, S. T. S., Engen, S. S., Gonzalez, A. S. R., Michael, J., & Mitkidis, P. (2024). Committed (dis) honesty: A systematic meta-analytic review of the divergent effects of social commitment to individuals or honesty oaths on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 150(5), 586–620.Google ScholarPubMed