Is it costly to deceive? People are adept at detecting gossipers' lies but may not reward honesty.
cooperation
gossip
honesty
lies
reputation
trust
Journal
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2970
Titre abrégé: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7503623
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 11 2021
22 11 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
10
2021
pubmed:
5
10
2021
medline:
1
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The possibility that gossipers may share dishonest reputational information is a key challenge to claims that gossip can shore up cooperation in social groups. It has been suggested that imposing social costs on dishonest gossipers should increase the honesty of these reputational signals. However, at present, there is little evidence of people's willingness to impose costs on dishonest gossipers; there is also little evidence of their ability to detect gossipers' lies in the first place. This paper aims to shed light on people's abilities to detect dishonest gossip and their treatment of those who share it. To do this, we report the results of two trust game studies using the strategy method (study 1) and repeated interactions in the laboratory (study 2). We show that in an environment where gossipers tell spontaneous lies people are more inclined to believe honest than dishonest gossip. We also show that people are more likely to treat favourably gossipers they believe to be honest, but that this does not always result in more favourable treatment for gossipers who were actually honest. We discuss the implications for the potential utility of social sanctions as a tool for securing honesty. This article is part of the theme issue 'The language of cooperation: reputation and honest signalling'.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34601910
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0304
pmc: PMC8487739
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5599831']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20200304Références
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2014 Nov;18(4):311-25
pubmed: 24727973
Cogn Process. 2012 Oct;13 Suppl 2:465-75
pubmed: 21984345
Hum Nat. 2006 Sep;17(3):337-54
pubmed: 26181477
Nature. 1998 Jun 11;393(6685):573-7
pubmed: 9634232
Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;134(4):477-92
pubmed: 18605814
PLoS One. 2014 May 15;9(5):e97533
pubmed: 24831097
Psychol Sci. 2020 Jun;31(6):702-714
pubmed: 32453621
Br J Dev Psychol. 2020 Jun;38(2):219-238
pubmed: 31925821
Evol Psychol. 2012 Dec 20;10(5):868-83
pubmed: 23253792
Soc Sci Res. 2021 Mar;95:102522
pubmed: 33653586
Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8
pubmed: 16251955
Psychol Sci. 2014 Mar;25(3):656-64
pubmed: 24463551
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Nov 6;98(23):13189-94
pubmed: 11687618