Abstract:Cognitive control is crucially involved in making (dis)honest decisions. However, the precise nature of this role has been hotly debated. Is honesty an intuitive response, or is will power needed to override an intuitive inclination to cheat? A reconciliation of these conflicting views proposes that cognitive control enables dishonest participants to be honest, whereas it allows those who are generally honest to cheat. Thus, cognitive control does not promote (dis)honesty per se; it depends on one's moral default. In the present study, we tested this proposal using electroencephalograms in humans (males and females) in combination with an independent localizer (Stroop task) to mitigate the problem of reverse inference. Our analysis revealed that the neural signature evoked by cognitive control demands in the Stroop task can be used to estimate (dis)honest choices in an independent cheating task, providing converging evidence that cognitive control can indeed help honest participants to cheat, whereas it facilitates honesty for cheaters.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Dishonesty causes enormous economic losses. To target dishonesty with interventions, a rigorous understanding of the underlying cognitive mechanisms is required. A recent study found that cognitive control enables honest participants to cheat, whereas it helps cheaters to be honest. However, it is evident that a single study does not suffice as support for a novel hypothesis. Therefore, we tested the replicability of this finding using a different modality (EEG instead of fMRI) together with an independent localizer task to avoid reverse inference. We find that the same neural signature evoked by cognitive control demands in the localizer task can be used to estimate (dis)honesty in an independent cheating task, establishing converging evidence that the effect of cognitive control indeed depends on a person's moral default.

Eliciting dishonesty in online experiments: The observed vs. mind cheating game

Adding a third-party player in the sender-receiver deception game

An EEG Dataset of Neural Signatures in a Competitive Two-Player Game Encouraging Deceptive Behavior

The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior.

Time pressure and honesty in a deception game

Game Design for Eliciting Distinguishable Behavior

Trickery: Exploring a Serious Game Approach to Raise Awareness of Deceptive Patterns

Dynamic valuation bias explains social influence on cheating behavior

Gender difference in spontaneous deception: A hyperscanning study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy

Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty

The Difference Spotting Task: A new nonverbal measure of cheating behavior

Honesty in the Digital Age

Between me and we: The importance of self-profit versus social justifiability for ethical decision making

Cognitive Control Promotes Either Honesty or Dishonesty, Depending on One's Moral Default

Cheating on Unproctored Online Exams: Prevalence, Mitigation Measures, and Effects on Exam Performance

Trust Me: Communication and Competition in a Psychological Game

On the heterogeneity of people's (dis)honest behavior along two dimensions: Cost of lying and cost of acquiring information

Nothing but lies: improving the validity of neural predictors of deception

Detecting lies in investigative interviews through the analysis of response latencies and error rates to unexpected questions

A Game-Theoretic Foundation of Deception: Knowledge Acquisition and Fundamental Limits

Using games to understand the mind