ArticlePDF Available

Personality Traits Associated with Various Forms of Lying

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In this study, we explored the relationship between personality traits and the tendency to lie. Specifically, we examined the correlation between various forms of lying and the personality factors of self-esteem, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. We developed a lie scale that assessed the tendency to tell three types of lies: altruistic, self-serving, and vindictive. A total of 352 participants completed the lie scale, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Self-esteem, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness were negatively correlated with lying, while neuroticism was positively correlated with lying. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine the unique set of personality predictors for each type of lie.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Psychological Studies
ISSN 0033-2968
Psychol Stud
DOI 10.1007/s12646-020-00563-x
Personality Traits Associated with Various
Forms of Lying
Christian L.Hart, Rasheonia Lemon,
Drew A.Curtis & James D.Griffith
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by National
Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Personality Traits Associated with Various Forms of Lying
Christian L. Hart
1
Rasheonia Lemon
1
Drew A. Curtis
2
James D. Griffith
3
Received: 14 May 2019 / Accepted: 1 September 2019
ÓNational Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2020
Abstract In this study, we explored the relationship
between personality traits and the tendency to lie. Specif-
ically, we examined the correlation between various forms
of lying and the personality factors of self-esteem, open-
ness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neu-
roticism. We developed a lie scale that assessed the
tendency to tell three types of lies: altruistic, self-serving,
and vindictive. A total of 352 participants completed the lie
scale, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, and the Rosen-
berg Self-Esteem Scale. Self-esteem, openness, conscien-
tiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness were negatively
correlated with lying, while neuroticism was positively
correlated with lying. Multiple regression analyses were
used to determine the unique set of personality predictors
for each type of lie.
Keywords Deception Lie Personality Big five
Self-esteem
Introduction
Lying and other forms of deception are pervasive social
behaviors that can inflict great harm but are also widely
accepted and encouraged as instruments of social harmony
(Bok, 1999; Campbell, 2001; Vrij, 2008). A lie can be
viewed generally as a misleading manipulation of the truth,
but it appears in many forms, such as fabrication, exag-
geration, concealment, and omission (Bok, 1999; Camp-
bell, 2001; Ekman, 1997; Masip, Garrido, & Herrero, 2004;
Vrij, 2008). All lies are marked by a decision to deceive a
receiver, all while attempting to conceal the deception
(Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Ekman, 1988,1997; Mahon,
2008; Masip, Garrido, & Herrero, 2004). Vrij (2008, p. 15)
offered a more precise definition of a lie that is widely used
in the deception literature. He defined a lie as ‘‘a successful
or unsuccessful attempt, without forewarning, to create in
another a belief which the communicator considers to be
untrue.’
People tell lies for many reasons. Altruistic lies are told
to benefit others; these lies often appear as the little white
lies people tell to spare another’s feelings by avoiding
awkward or painful truths (e.g., ‘Yes, I do like your new
haircut.’’; Hart, Curtis, Williams, Hathaway, & Griffith,
2014; Levine & Schweitzer, 2015). Antisocial or vindictive
lies are told with the intent to do harm to others (Guthrie &
Kunkel, 2013). For example, a person may spread false
rumors or attempt to undercut a competitor with false-
hoods. Self-serving lies are those told to gain advantage,
avoid punishment, or to promote one’s status (Bok, 1999;
DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996;
Ekman, 1997). These categories of lies are not exhaustive
or mutually exclusive, and lies can certainly be parsed into
categories other than these.
Assessing the prevalence and variability of lying in
society is a challenging task, as objective detection of
veracity is often impossible, and self-reports of mendacity
can be paradoxically tainted by deception. DePaulo, Kashy,
Kirkendol, Wyer, and Epstein (1996) conducted studies of
lying with college students and community members in
&Christian L. Hart
chart2@twu.edu
1
Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Texas Woman’s
University, Denton, TX, USA
2
Department of Psychology and Sociology, Angelo State
University, San Angelo, TX, USA
3
Department of Psychology, Shippensburg University,
Shippensburg, PA, USA
123
Psychol Stud
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00563-x
Author's personal copy
which participants documented the lies they told in diaries.
Their results indicated that, on average, people lie a couple
of times per day. They found that college students used
deception in one out of every three social interactions.
While these researchers reported that, on average, people
lie daily, subsequent research and reanalysis of the data
suggests considerable interpersonal variability in deception
and a strong positive skew in the distribution, with most
people lying very little and a few telling many lies
(DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996;
Serota & Levine, 2014; Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2009).
There is compelling evidence that personality traits can
be used to explain individual differences in patterns of
lying. Researchers have found that the Dark Triad traits of
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are asso-
ciated with all manner of nefarious activities, including
scholastic cheating, sexual infidelity, interpersonal
aggression, and criminality (Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar,
& Meijer, 2017; Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus, 2010;
Wright, Morgan, Almeida, Almosaed, Moghrabi, &
Bashatah, 2017). It perhaps comes as no surprise, then, that
Dark Triad traits are also associated with lying (Azizli,
Atkinson, Baughman, Chin, Vernon, Harris, & Veselka,
2016; Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014).
In addition to the Dark Triad traits, other personality
traits have been associated with deceptive tendencies. Trait
compassion is associated with lying, although it is specif-
ically tied to more altruistic or prosocial forms of lying
(Lupoli, Jampol, & Oveis, 2017). Both low self-esteem and
need for approval are associated with cheating and dis-
honesty (Lobel & Levanon, 1988; Ward 1986). Relatedly,
Kashy and DePaulo (1996) found that people who score
higher in self-consciousness and impression management
lie more frequently. Anxious personality, anxious attach-
ment style, and avoidant attachment style are also associ-
ated with higher rates of lying (Cole, 2001).
Researchers have also examined how broad personal-
ity structure such as the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of
personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is related to
deceptive behaviors (Buss, 1992). There is no solid
evidence that openness is associated with lying. A recent
study found no significant correlation between openness
and validated measures of honesty (Gaughan, Miller, &
Lynam, 2012), and a review of the literature and a recent
meta-analysis found, at best, equivocal support for any
relationship between openness and academic dishonesty
(Giluk, & Postlethwaite, 2015). On the other hand, a
number of studies have found that people higher in
extraversion are more likely to lie (Conrads, Irlenbusch,
Rilke, & Walkowitz, 2013; Gylfason, Halldorsson, &
Kristinsson, 2016; Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). Lower
levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness consis-
tently predict lying, criminal offending, and academic
cheating (Horn & Brannick, 2004; Wiebe, 2004; Wil-
liams, Nathanson, and Paulhus, 2010). Higher levels of
neuroticism are associated with academic dishonesty and
deceptive self-presentation (Eshet, Grinautski, Peled,
Barczyk, 2014; Jackson & Francis, 1999; Michikyan,
Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2014).
The relationship between dishonesty and personality
has been explored extensively and much has been dis-
covered; however, a complete understanding of the
relationship between lying and personality is still
incomplete. Studies have previously explored some ele-
ments of the relationship between the FFM of person-
ality, self-esteem, and various forms of dishonesty and
deception, but more analysis is needed to develop a more
complete picture of those relationships. The current study
explored the relationships between self-esteem, the FFM
personality traits, and a particular type of deception—
lying. Further, we wanted to explore whether particular
personality traits were associated with telling some types
of lies more than others. Our hypothesis was that
extraversion and neuroticism would be positively corre-
lated with lying. We also expected that self-esteem,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness would be negatively
correlated with lying. Given the meager evidence for a
relationship between openness and dishonesty, we had no
hypothesis for a relationship between those variables.
Additionally, we expected that each type of lie would
have a unique pattern of personality trait predictors.
Method
Participants
In total, 352 participants volunteered for this study; 123
were men, 221 were women, and 8 individuals identified
as another gender identity. Participants were a conve-
nience sample from the general population recruited by
students in an undergraduate psychology class. The
participants were primarily acquaintances recruited via
email and social media. Presumably, many of the par-
ticipants were acquainted with the students who recruited
them. The recruiters were not involved in any other
phase of the study and did not have access to the par-
ticipants’ responses. We did not collect any data on the
participant recruitment response rate. The participants
ranged between 18 and 60 years old with a mean of
25.52 (SD 7.79). Totally, 273 participants self-identified
as Caucasian, 22 as African-American, 21 as Latin
American, 11 as Asian-American, 1 as Native American,
1 as Pacific Islander, and 23 participants identified as
other. No incentives were offered, and all participants
gave their informed consent.
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
Materials and Procedure
All participants completed an online survey. After com-
pleting an informed consent and demographics questions,
participants completed several measures of personality and
lying. The first measure was the Ten-Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The
TIPI is a short, reliable, and validated measure of the Five-
Factor personality domains. Each item on the TIPI is
scored on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7
(agree strongly). We combined the two questions for each
personality factor, yielding a score between 2 and 14 for
each factor.
Participants then completed the 10-item Rosenberg self-
esteem scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). This is a widely
used, reliable, and valid measure of self-esteem. Each item
on the RSES is scored on a 0 (strongly disagree) to 3
(strongly agree) scale, yielding a total score between 0 and
30.
Lastly, participants completed a lie scale that we
developed. This measure consisted of 16 statements about
one’s lying behaviors that were rated on a seven-point scale
ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree.’ A
variety of different types of lies were measured. Our
development and selection of items was guided by student
focus groups, preliminary qualitative analyses of self-re-
ported lies from two unpublished studies on deception, and
reviews of the existing literature (Levine et al. 2016; Vrij,
2008; see Table 1for the 16-item lie scale).
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
according to the recommendations of Costello and Osborne
(2005). We used the scree test method for factor retention
(i.e., factors that occurred on the scree plot prior to the
point of inflection were retained; see Fig. 1). Those factors
also were the only ones with eigenvalues greater than one.
In order to minimize cross-loadings, we utilized a varimax
rotation.
The scree test and eigenvalues suggested a three-fac-
tor solution for the lie items. The three factors exhibited
eigenvalues of 6.37, 2.93, and 1.60. None of the
remaining factors accounted for more than 6% of the
variability (i.e., those at and beyond the point of
inflection). An analysis of the varimax rotated factor
loadings (see Table 1) suggested that factor 1 was
indicative of self-serving lies such as avoiding conse-
quences of bad behavior and self-promotion. Factor 2
was indicative of altruistic or benevolent lies told in
order to benefit another. Factor 3 consisted of vindictive
Table 1 Varimax rotated factor loadings for the LiES scale
Items Loadings
123
I lie in order to avoid shame .81 .22 .06
If I am suspected of doing something wrong, I lie to hide my wrongdoing .80 .14 .17
I tell the truth even if it brings my wrongdoings to light* .78 .13 .13
To avoid embarrassment, I lie .76 .33 .01
I lie to others in order to conceal my misdeeds .72 .24 .16
I lie to avoid disapproval from others .72 .42 .04
I lie in order to make myself seem better than I actually am .71 .29 .09
I am truthful when confronted about my social transgressions* .67 .02 .04
I lie in order to make people feel better .21 .86 .05
I tell white lies in order to make people feel better .19 .84 .01
I lie to relieve others’ burdens .23 .77 .10
I do not tell lies in order to spare another’s feelings* .26 .67 .01
I lie in order to cause harm to others .15 .01 .89
I tell lies in order to hurt, annoy, or upset others .18 .05 .82
I lie for revenge .21 .04 .81
I do not lie in order to intentionally harm people* .09 .05 .61
Eigenvalue 6.37 2.39 1.60
% of Variance 39.81 14.96 10.00
Cronbach’s a.91 .84 .76
*Reverse coded
Bold values indicate factor loadings above .60
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
lies told in order to harm another person. All items had
factor loadings [.60 and cross-loadings \.45.
Cronbach’s alphas for the three categories of lie ques-
tions were .91 (self-serving), .84 (altruistic), and .76 (vin-
dictive). For each lie type, we calculated an average scored
based on responses to the questions for that type of lie.
Thus, for each type of lie, scores ranged from 1 to 7. The
responses for Factor 3 (vindictive) were positively skewed
(2.54), so we completed a logarithmic transformation,
reducing the skew to an acceptable level (1.43). All sub-
sequent correlation and regression analyses were conducted
on this transformed variable.
Fig. 1 Scree plot for the lie scale
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations for personality measures
MSD12345
1. Self-esteem 18.40 6.43
2. Openness 10.60 2.50 .19***
3. Conscientiousness 9.34 3.04 .49*** .11*
4. Extraversion 7.39 3.42 .33*** .31*** .07
5. Agreeableness 9.44 2.84 .18*** .18*** .19*** .12*
6. Neuroticism 7.50 3.34 -.54*** -.15** -.28*** -.11* -.25***
*p\.05
**p\.01
***p\.001
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
Results
Following the procedures of McLeod and Genereux
(2008), we computed descriptive statistics, bivariate cor-
relations, and multiple regression analyses for the person-
ality measures and the lying measures. The means,
standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the per-
sonality measures are presented in Table 2. There were
significant small to moderate correlations between all the
personality measures except between extraversion and
conscientiousness. The means, standard deviations, and
bivariate correlations for the three types of lies are pre-
sented in Table 3. There were significant small to moderate
correlations between each of the lie types.
Using the RSES and the five factors of the TIPI as
predictor variables, we computed three standard multiple
regression analyses to predict the endorsement of each of
the three types of lies independently. The results of the
regression analyses are presented in Table 4. All regression
analyses were significant at p\.01. The results of the
Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations for different types of lies
MSD 1 2
1. Self-serving 3.32 1.38
2. Altruistic 4.26 1.38 .54***
3. Vindictive 1.56 1.00 .24*** .12*
*p\.05
***p\.001
Table 4 Standard multiple regression analyses for lying and correlation analyses
Lie type and predictors RR
2
Adj. R
2
FBbsr
2
r
Self-serving .48 .23 .22 17.01***
Self-esteem -.08 -.35*** .07 -.44***
Openness -.05 -.09 .01 -.18***
Conscientiousness -.06 -.14 .00 -.31***
Extraversion .00 .01 .00 -.17**
Agreeableness .04 .09 .01 -.19***
Neuroticism .00 .00 .00 .26***
Altruistic .23 .06 .14 3.32**
Self-esteem -.05 -.24*** .03 -.21***
Openness -.03 -.06 .00 -.08
Conscientiousness -.02 -.04 .00 -.12*
Extraversion .02 .05 .00 -.04
Agreeableness .02 -.05 .00 -.01
Neuroticism -.02 -.05 .00 .08
Vindictive .33 .11 .09 6.86***
Self-esteem -.01 -.09 .00 -.05
Openness -.01 -.02 .00 -.05
Conscientiousness -.01 -.02 .00 -.08
Extraversion .03 .10 .01 .04
Agreeableness -.11 -.32*** .09 -.30***
Neuroticism -.04 -.13* .01 -.01
*p\.05
**p\.01
***p\.001
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
regression analyses revealed that for self-serving lies and
altruistic lies, self-esteem was the only significant predictor
variable. The regression analysis for vindictive lies indi-
cated that agreeableness and neuroticism were the only
significant predictor variables. Partially supporting our
hypothesis that each lie type would have a unique set of
predictors, we found that the predictors for vindictive lies
were distinct, but the predictors for self-serving and
altruistic lies were similar. Contrary to our hypotheses,
extraversion was negatively correlated with self-serving
lies and was not significantly correlated with altruistic and
vindictive lies. Partially supporting our hypotheses,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and self-esteem were
each negatively correlated with some types of lies, but not
all; agreeableness was not correlated with altruistic lies,
and consciousness and self-esteem were not correlated with
vindictive lies. In partial support of our hypotheses, neu-
roticism was positively correlated with self-serving lies,
but was not significantly correlated with the other two
types of lies. We also provided bivariate correlations
between each personality variable and each type of lie (see
Table 4).
Discussion
The accumulated evidence on deception suggests that lying
is a common occurrence in most facets of life (Bok, 1999;
Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005; Vrij, 2008).
On an encouraging note, we found that the types of lies
people reported telling most often were altruistic lies, and
the ones they told very rarely were the vindictive lies. In
this study, we demonstrated that certain personality traits
are systematically associated with the tendency to tell
specific types of lies. Each of the regression formulas
predicting the three types of lies was significant, with
Rvalues ranging from .23 to .48. We found broad support
for our hypothesis that agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and self-esteem would be negatively correlated with the
tendency to lie. This pattern of results was consistent with
previous studies relating personality to deception (Horn &
Brannick, 2004; Lobel & Levanon, 1988; Ward 1986;
Wiebe, 2004; Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus, 2010).
Contrary to our hypotheses, extraversion was negatively
correlated with self-serving lies and was not significantly
correlated with altruistic and antisocial lies. This is at odds
with research cited earlier in this paper. These unexpected
findings could be due to our measure of lying being con-
siderably different than the measures of deception used in
previous research. For instance, Conrads, Irlenbusch,
Rilke, and Walkowitz, (2013) used a deception task in
which teams of individuals were in a competitive game
attempting to win financial rewards and Gylfason,
Halldorsson, and Kristinsson (2016) also used a deception
and trust game task in which participants were competing
with each other. In contrast to these contrived scenarios,
our participants were simply asked to report about their
tendency to lies in everyday situations.
One interesting pattern in our results was that no single
personality trait correlated with every type of lie. This
suggests that the relationship between personality and
deceptive tendencies may be nuanced. These findings
certainly suggest that caution should be used when using
personality measures as predictors of lying, as each trait
may only predict certain categories of lies. It was also
noteworthy that all three of the lie categories were corre-
lated with each other, suggesting that people who tell one
type of lie tend to tell the others.
Another curious finding in the results was how few
significant personality predictors there were in each
regression model. It might be that tendency or motivations
to tell lies hinge on a relatively simple array of underlying
psychological process or incentives. Perhaps, future
investigations should focus on a search for the broad psy-
chological underpinnings of deceptive tendencies.
Consistent with previous research, self-esteem was
negatively correlated with self-serving and altruistic lies
but not with vindictive lies (Lobel & Levanon, 1988; Ward
1986). Further, it was the only significant predictor in the
regression models for self-serving and altruistic lies. Per-
haps, high self-esteem serves as a buffer against the
internal processes or social influence that often leads one to
lie, or, conversely, it may be that those with low self-
esteem use lying as a way of protecting themselves from
social assaults on their already fragile characters.
While the findings from this study are useful in under-
standing who tells which types of lies, some limitations of
our methodology should be considered when interpreting
them. Though we used one categorization system for lies,
forms or types of deception can be parsed and organized in
many ways, so using a different set of lie categories would
likely yield a different set of results. As mentioned previ-
ously, when measuring lying using a self-report instrument,
one is in the difficult position of trusting that liars will be
honest about their lying—a somewhat dubious proposition.
Thus, the validity of such measures will always be a point
of concern. Another limitation is that we used a conve-
nience sample recruited via email and social media by
college students; thus, the sample is likely not representa-
tive of the general population. An additional limitation is
that we only measured a handful of very broad personality
traits. If future research projects examine a more elaborate
set of traits, our understanding of the personality predictors
of lying might change substantially.
The results of this study did confirm our broad
hypotheses that there are specific personality traits that
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
predict lying, and the precise combination of personality
predictors depends on the specific type of lie one is
considering. These findings are congruent with those of
other researchers (McLeod & Genereux, 2008). While
McLeod and Genereux argued that lying should not be
viewed as a singular behavior, but as a multifaceted set
of behaviors with a complex array of underlying psy-
chological mechanisms, our results suggest that the
number of personality predictors may actually be few in
number. Lies occur within a complex cluster of social,
behavioral, and situational contexts that ought to be
systematically considered. If future research continues to
conceptualize the intricate set of motivations for lying
and search for the fundamental personality traits associ-
ated with each of those unique motivations, we will
move toward a more precise, accurate, and complete
understanding of interpersonal deception and those
mechanisms that drive it.
Author Contributions CLH and RL conceived and designed the
study. CLH, RL, and DAC collected the data. CLH and JDG analyzed
and interpreted the data. CLH, DAC, and RL drafted the manuscript.
References
Azizli, N., Atkinson, B. E., Baughman, H. M., Chin, K., Vernon, P.
A., Harris, E., et al. (2016). Lies and crimes: Dark triad,
misconduct, and high-stakes deception. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 89, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2015.09.034.
Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public life and private life.
New York: Vintage Books.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3),
214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.
Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five
personality factors in interactional context. Journal of Person-
ality, 60(2), 477–499.
Campbell, J. (2001). The liar’s tale: A history of falsehood. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 18(1), 107–129.
Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R. M., & Walkowitz, G. (2013).
Lying and team incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34,
1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.10.011.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality
inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI)
manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in
exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting
the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., &
Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.
Ekman, P. (1988). Lying and nonverbal behavior: Theoretical issues
and new findings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(3),
163–175.
Ekman, P. (1997). Deception, lying, and demeanor. In D. F. Halpern
& A. E. Voiskounsky (Eds.), States of mind: American and post-
Soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psychology (pp.
93–105). New York: Oxford University Press.
Eshet, Y., Grinautski, K., Peled, Y., & Barczyk, C. (2014). No more
excuses- Personality traits and academic dishonesty in online
courses. Journal of Statistical Science and Application, 2,
111–118. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-224X/2014.03.004.
Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). Examining the
utility of general models of personality in the study of
psychopathy: A comparison of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO
PI-R. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(4), 513–523.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.4.513.
Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2015). Big five personality and
academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 72, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2014.08.027.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very
brief measure of the big five personality domains. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Guthrie, J., & Kunkel, A. (2013). Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet)
little lies: Deception in romantic relationships. Communication
Studies, 64(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.
2012.755637.
Gylfason, H. F., Halldorsson, F., & Kristinsson, K. (2016). Person-
ality in Gneezy’s cheap talk game: The interaction between
honesty-humility and extraversion in predicting deceptive
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 222–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.075.
Hart, C. L., Curtis, D. A., Williams, N. M., Hathaway, M. D., &
Griffith, J. D. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: Benevolent
deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Relationships
Research, 5(e8), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.8.
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005).
Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of decep-
tion between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616204271303.
Horn, J., & Brannick, M. T. (2004). Integrity, conscientiousness, and
honesty. Psychological Reports, 95(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.
2466/pr0.95.1.27-38.
Jackson, C. J., & Francis, L. J. (1999). Interpreting the correlation
between neuroticism and lie scale scores. Personality and
Individual Differences, 26(1), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0191-8869(98)00142-1.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Baughman, H. M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014).
What a tangled web we weave: The dark triad traits and
deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.038.
Kashy, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1037–1051.
Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When
deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 126, 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.obhdp.2014.10.007.
Levine, T. R., Ali, M. V., Dean, M., Abdulla, R. A., & Garcia-Ruano,
K. (2016). Toward a pan-cultural typology of deception motives.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,45(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1137079
Lobel, T. E., & Levanon, L. (1988). Self-esteem, need for approval,
and cheating behavior in children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(1), 122–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.80.1.122.
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
Lupoli, M., Jampol, L., & Oveis, C. (2017). Lying because we care:
Compassion increases prosocial lying. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 146(7), 1026–1042. https://doi.org/10.
1037/xge0000315.
Mahon, E. J. (2008). Two definitions of lying. The International
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/
10.5840/ijap200822216.
Masip, J., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2004). Defining deception.
Anales de Psicologı
´
a, 20(1), 147–171.
McLeod, B. A., & Genereux, R. L. (2008). Predicting the accept-
ability and likelihood of lying: The interaction of personality
with type of lie. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7),
591–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.015.
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell
who I am? Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presenta-
tion among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The
malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical
review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machi-
avellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691
616666070.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2014). A few prolific liars: Variation
in the prevalence of lying. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 34(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X
14528804.
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2009). The prevalence of
lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human
Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities
(2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.
Ward, D. A. (1986). Self-esteem and dishonest behavior revisited.
Journal of Social Psychology, 126(6), 709–713. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00224545.1986.9713652.
Wiebe, R. P. (2004). Delinquent behavior and the five-factor model:
Hiding in the adaptive landscape? Individual Difference
Research, 2(1), 38–62.
Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying
and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive
ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 16(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020773.
Wright, J. P., Morgan, M. A., Almeida, P. R., Almosaed, N. F.,
Moghrabi, S. S., & Bashatah, F. S. (2017). Malevolent forces:
Self-control, the dark triad, and crime. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 15(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/154
1204016667995.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Psychol Stud
123
Author's personal copy
... In short, thanks to its compatibility with the organisation of memories, the 5Ws-CI is expected to encourage truth tellers to report more details than lie tellers. Last, for what concerns Machiavellianism, since it is associated with better lying (Hart et al., 2020), we expected higher Machiavellianism to be positively associated with the amount of details reported by the interviewees and as a consequence of moderating the veracity effect, and that the difference between truth tellers and lie tellers might be smaller at higher levels of Machiavellianism than at lower levels. ...
... In this situation, the difference between truth tellers and lie tellers was significant only for the CCR and the 5Ws-CI. These results support the assumption that Machiavellianism makes better liars (Hart et al., 2020;Palena et al., 2023), as with the ECI high Machiavellian liars could not be discriminated by high Machiavellian truth tellers, as well as that interviewers can deal with this by adopting effective interviewing strategies (as high Machiavellian liars were distinguishable from high Machiavellian truth tellers in the CCR and 5Ws-CI techniques conditions). ...
... Individual differences in the tendency to lie due, for example, to personality traits have been discussed (Hart et al., 2020;Jonason et al., 2014;Roeser et al., 2016). The emotional impact of lying has been in focus of scientific interest and discussions for some time past (e.g., Buller & Burgoon, 1996;Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçe i-Dinn, 2009;Ekman, 2009) whereas the higher cognitive load of performing a lie (effectively) has been shown (e.g., Vrij et al., 2008). ...
... Accordingly, it may be impossible to apply repeated measurements in most of the investigations. Although it first seems appropriate to control for impacting factors on deception, for example personality traits such as neuroticism (Hart et al., 2020) or narcissism (Jonason et al., 2014), repeated participation might be impossible due to the necessary naivety. Here, we see how important it is to precisely plan all aspects of the investigation in advance since the main aspects mutually influence one another. ...
Article
Full-text available
The detection of deception poses one of the main challenges in policing and security environment. It is the inherent goal of security to detect and prevent unlawful events to happen. This is especially true for aviation security as airports continue to constitute attractive targets for terrorist attacks. In consequence, law enforcement agencies are seeking effective and efficient solutions for ensuring high-level security and are often adopting approaches that include behaviour detection. This pressing need for solutions provides ground for pseudoscientific suggestions and methods as those that are cited in an article of the References section. Despite this justified criticism, options to overcome the dangers of pseudoscience are not offered. Therefore, this paper provides a first common standard for conducting research in aviation security for scientists and for practitioners. It highlights several factors that are important to consider before conducting research on behaviour detection. Furthermore, this paper aims to empower experts in the field of aviation security to recognize valid and reliable solutions (e.g., programs, methods, tools) and discusses the relevance as well as the challenges of conducting applied research in the field of aviation security.
... Therefore, lying is deeply connected with humans' reward-seeking behavior [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Lies can harm interpersonal relationships, decrease social trust, and in-turn affect the liar's self-esteem and experiences [20][21][22][23][24]. While some research has argued for the benefits of "white lies" [25,26], honesty has been for millennia characterised as a virtue of human-beings by philosophers and others. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
People tell lies when seeking rewards. Large language models (LLMs) are aligned to human values with reinforcement learning where they get rewards if they satisfy human preference. We find that this also induces dishonesty in helpful and harmless alignment where LLMs tell lies in generating harmless responses. Using the latest interpreting tools, we detect dishonesty, show how LLMs can be harmful if their honesty is increased, and analyze such conflicts at the parameter-level. Given these preliminaries and the hypothesis that reward-seeking stimulates dishonesty, we theoretically show that the dishonesty can in-turn decrease the alignment performances and augment reward-seeking alignment with representation regularization. Extensive results, including GPT-4 annotated win-rates, perplexities, and cases studies demonstrate that we can train more honest, helpful, and harmless LLMs. We will make all our codes and results be open-sourced upon this paper's acceptance.
... 60 There has been a significant negative correlation between neuroticism scores and lie scores, suggesting that the lie scale functions as an index of "faking good." 61,62 The lie scale was reported to correlate positively with extraversion, although the correlation was weak. 62,63 Our finding did not confirm this correlation, but it can be inferred that carriers of the A2 allele are more prone to "faking good" than those with the A1 allele. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective This study aimed to find a potential association between the DRD2 Taq1A gene polymorphism (rs1800497 C32806T) and personality traits. Methods In all, 249 youths were recruited for this study. The Short-form Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was administered to assess personality traits. The participants were genotyped for the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism using the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method. Statistical analysis was carried out to find a possible association between the genotypes and aspects of personality traits assessed. Results The frequencies of the A1 and A2 alleles in our sampled population were 215 (43.2%) and 283 (56.8%), while the frequencies of A1A1, A1A2, and A2A2 were 67 (26.9%), 81 (32.5%), and 101 (40.6%), respectively. The study population was not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (χ² = 17.64, p < 0.001). The A2 allele was significantly associated with extraversion. Although this allele was also associated with neuroticism, psychoticism, and lie, the association was not significant. Conclusion The A2 allele of the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism was found to be more associated with extraversion, as measured by the Short-form Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
... Individuals with low levels of neuroticism, on the other hand, are more emotionally stable and robust, have stronger coping skills, and are generally more level-headed. Hart et al. (2020) have also concluded that there is a correlation between neuroticism and a tendency to lie. Neuroticism has a big impact on how someone feels and how psychologically healthy they are as a whole. ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the intricate relationship between personality traits and suicidal tendencies is crucial for effective suicide prevention strategies. This paper delves into the influence of the Big Five personality traits -Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN) -on susceptibility to suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Through a comprehensive review of the literature and analysis of relevant cases, it explores how various personality traits intersect with suicidal ideation. Findings reveal that high neuroticism, characterized by emotional instability and negative affectivity, significantly correlates with suicidal intentions.Additionally, lower levels of agreeableness are associated with elevated suicide rates, suggesting a lack of empathy and cooperation may contribute to suicidal thinking. The paper underscores the importance of considering personality factors in suicide risk assessment and intervention strategies. By recognizing the role of personality traits in shaping individuals' responses to distress, tailored interventions can be developed to mitigate suicide risk and promote mental well-being. Keywords: OCEAN, Personality Traits, Suicide
... The genesis of this investigation resides in the examination of a widely held societal belief that persons with neurotic tendencies may have a greater propensity for artistic and creative pursuits. It has been observed that both in reality and within literary works, artists are often depicted as individuals who possess profound emotional sensitivity, exhibit strong reactivity, or have certain neurotic tendencies [5]. The prevalence of this widely held preconception has motivated our investigation into the potential objective association between neuroticism and creative inclinations within the realm of scientific inquiry. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present research investigated the possible correlation between personality qualities, namely the scores on the Openness and Neuroticism dimensions, and the inclination to participate in creative pursuits. The existing body of research has shown a positive correlation between an individual's level of openness and their tendency towards creative pursuits. However, the potential moderating effect of the variable neuroticism on this link remains largely unexplored. In order to ascertain the similarity of openness scores, a correlation study was performed to examine the relationship between neuroticism scores and artistic inclination ratings. The research included a comprehensive 42-item questionnaire to assess the personality characteristics and creative tendencies of participants. Subsequently, the collected data were utilised to establish groups and conduct further association analyses. In the present study, we observed a slight positive connection between scores on the neuroticism scale and scores on the art-loving inclination scale among two distinct sample groups. These groups were categorised based on their openness scores, namely falling within the ranges of 25-36 and 37-48. This discovery offers novel perspectives on comprehending people' creative predispositions and their correlation with personality features, potentially furnishing educators and mental health practitioners with significant insights.
... Conversely, those high in emotional stability (the opposite of neuroticism) are more likely to conform to social desirability and engage less in deceptive IMs [65]. Our findings align with previous psychological research indicating that neuroticism is positively associated with lying, while extraversion is negatively associated with lying [66]. Based on this evidence, we assert that the self-reported IM measures are reliable. ...
Article
Whether an interviewee’s honest and deceptive responses can be detected by the signals of facial expressions in videos has been debated and called to be researched. We developed deep learningmodels enabled by computer vision to extract the temporal patterns of job applicants’ facial expressions and head movements to identify self-reported honest and deceptive impression management (IM) tactics from video frames in real asynchronous video interviews. A 12- to 15-min video was recorded for each of the N = 121 job applicants as they answered five structured behavioral interview questions. Each applicant completed a survey to self-evaluate their trustworthiness on four IM measures. Additionally, a field experiment was conducted to compare the concurrent validity associated with self-reported IMs between our modeling and human interviewers. Human interviewers’ performance in predicting these IMmeasures from another subset of 30 videos was obtained by having N = 30 human interviewers evaluate three recordings. Our models explained 91% and 84% of the variance in honest and deceptive IMs, respectively, and showed a stronger correlation with self-reported IMscores compared to human interviewers.
Article
Language is a vehicle for telling the truth and for lies. While linguistic profiles have been used to analyze the language used when telling lies, the linguistic profile of pathological liars has yet to be examined. The purpose of our study was to examine the linguistic profile of pathological liars, specifically from entries made in blogs and forums. We used the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software to analyze the narratives of 22 self-reported pathological liars and compared those narratives to normative blog data. We found that pathological liars used more affective processes, negative emotion, risk, and family words. Additionally, pathological liars’ narratives contained fewer words, were less analytic, contained less clout, consisted of less tone, and were more authentic. Lastly, pathological liars tended to use more first-person singular pronouns. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Article
Prosocial lying often serves to enhance interpersonal relationships; however, it can also increase depressive mood. This study investigates how the personality trait of unmitigated communion–defined as an excessive focus on others at the expense of oneself–influences the relationship between prosocial lying and depressive mood. Our findings reveal a positive correlation between unmitigated communion and prosocial lying. Furthermore, we find that unmitigated communion contributes to depressive mood via prosocial lying. This finding extends prior research, indicating a link between prosocial lying and increased depressive mood.
Article
Full-text available
Prosocial lies, or lies intended to benefit others, are ubiquitous behaviors that have important social and economic consequences. Though emotions play a central role in many forms of prosocial behavior, no work has investigated how emotions influence behavior when one has the opportunity to tell a prosocial lie—a situation that presents a conflict between two prosocial ethics: lying to prevent harm to another, and honesty, which might also provide benefits to the target of the lie. Here, we examine whether the emotion of compassion influences prosocial lying, and find that compassion causally increases and positively predicts prosocial lying. In Studies 1 and 2, participants evaluated a poorly written essay and provided feedback to the essay writer. Experimentally induced compassion felt toward the essay writer (Study 1) and individual differences in trait compassion (Study 2) were positively associated with inflated feedback to the essay writer. In both of these studies, the relationship between compassion and prosocial lying was partially mediated by an enhanced importance placed on preventing emotional harm. In Study 3, we found moderation such that experimentally induced compassion increased lies that resulted in financial gains for a charity, but not lies that produced financial gains for the self. This research illuminates the emotional underpinnings of the common yet morally complex behavior of prosocial lying, and builds on work highlighting the potentially harmful effects of compassion—an emotion typically seen as socially beneficial.
Article
Full-text available
Academic dishonesty is a disturbing issue in higher education that has been worsening over the years, especially with the appearance of the internet and the e-learning education. This new technology exposes students to the opportunity of using online bank exams and term papers and increases their tendency to cheat. This study investigates student academic dishonesty in the context of traditional and distance-learning courses in higher education. Data from 1,365 students enrolled in academic institutes in the U.S.A and Israel were surveyed to assess their personality and their willingness to commit various acts of academic misconduct. The findings indicate that in both countries dishonest behaviors are greater in face-to-face courses than in online courses. In addition, both American and Israeli students identified with the personality trait of Agreeableness showed a negative correlation with academic dishonesty. Furthermore, Israeli students identified with the personality traits of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability demonstrated a negative correlation with academic dishonesty. In contrast, the personality trait of Extraversion among American students was found in a positive correlation with academic misconduct. Implications for further research are discussed.
Chapter
Political belief systems are, at heart, psychological theories of motivation, personality, mental health, education, and social interaction. In this volume, Diane Halpern and Alexander Voiskounsky take advantage of recent political events in the former Soviet Union which have created a unique opportunity to study the ways in which two major world powers have defined contemporary psychological issues. Because access to Western literature in psychology was strictly controlled until 1991, much of Soviet psychology developed independently of Western ideas. Likewise, impediments in communication also prevented Western researchers and theorists from enhancing their work with Soviet perspectives. Although the political climate has changed enormously, barriers to the exchange of ideas still remain. States of Mind explores newly evolving areas of psychology that are particularly important at this time in history, and addresses these topics from both post-Soviet and American perspectives. Psychologists from both backgrounds present their personal views of their own areas of expertise to offer their counterparts a portion of the psychological landscape from a new vantage point.
Article
The term dark triad refers to the constellation of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Over the past few years, the concept has gained momentum, with many researchers assuming that the dark triad is a prominent antecedent of transgressive and norm-violating behavior. Our purpose in this meta-analytic review was to evaluate (a) interrelations among narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; (b) gender differences in these traits; (c) how these traits are linked to normal personality factors; and (d) the psychosocial correlates of the dark triad. Our findings show that dark triad traits are substantially intercorrelated, somewhat more prevalent among men than women, predominantly related to the Big Five personality factor of agreeableness and the HEXACO factor of honesty-humility, and generally associated with various types of negative psychosocial outcomes. We question whether dark triad traits are sufficiently distinct and argue that the way they are currently measured is too simple to capture the malevolent sides of personality. Because most research in this domain is cross-sectional and based on self-reports, we recommend using a cross-informant approach and prospective, longitudinal research designs for studying the predictive value of dark triad features.
Chapter
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
Article
The Dark Triad is represented by three interrelated personality characteristics thought to share a “dark core”—that is, to be associated with a range of negative outcomes. We investigate this link alongside another potent predictor of crime, low self-control. Our analyses found the Dark Triad was strongly predictive of delinquency, especially violent delinquency, where it accounted for the effects of self-control. Yet it exerted no significant effect on drug-based delinquency. However, an interaction between the Dark Triad and low self-control remained substantive and predictive across all models, where low self-control amplified the effects of the Dark Triad on delinquency.
Article
Recent papers have suggested that personality traits may predict behavior in cheap talk games. This paper investigated whether Honesty-Humility predicts dishonesty and whether Extraversion moderates the relationship between Honesty-Humility and dishonesty — all as measured by senders' behaviors in a cheap talk game. We hypothesized that the correlation between Honesty-Humility and dishonesty would be stronger among those who measure high for Extraversion than among those who measure low for Extraversion. One hundred and forty-three undergraduate students participated as senders in the study. Although Honesty-Humility did not correlate significantly with dishonest behavior, the results supported the hypothesis that Honesty-Humility interacted with Extraversion to predict dishonest behavior. The results suggest that the effects of a personality trait may depend upon other traits.
Article
Based on truth-default theory, this research examined accounts of recalled deception to develop a list of deception motives that are general across cultures. Participants from Egypt (N = 29), Guatemala (N = 118), Pakistan (N = 51), Saudi Arabia (N = 169), and the United States (N = 81) were asked, open-ended, to describe an instance of deception or lying either from the perspective of the liar or the target. These descriptions were used to refine and cross-validate a set of deception motives that are applicable across a range of cultures. People lie for a reason, and those reasons include covering a transgression, seeking selfish advantage, avoiding others, seeking to protect others, social politeness, making positive impressions, being malicious, and being funny.