Cheating in Mind Games: The Subtlety of Rules Matters

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Green consumption does not make people cheat: Three attempts to replicate moral licensing effect due to pro-environmental behavior (2019, methodology): “Dishonesty in Study 2 was measured with a task from Jiang (2013).”
The evolution of religion and morality: a synthesis of ethnographic and experimental evidence from eight societies (2017, methodology): “Drawing from the economics literature devoted to understanding dishonest behavior (Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi, 2013; Gigerenzer & Hug, 1992; Jiang, 2013), the Random Allocation Game measures behavioral deviations from rules in an economic game (Cohn, Fehr, & Maréchal, 2014; Hruschka et al., 2014;…”
Preferences for Truth‐Telling (2016, unknown): “We also include studies in which subjects report whether their prediction of a random draw was correct (as in Jiang 2013).”
Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty (2020, unknown): “To achieve this, we capitalize on the ‘cheat in your mind’ paradigm ( Jiang, 2013 ) for the reporting decisions in our experiment.”