Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Does Abstract Mindset Decrease or Increase Deception?

Published Online:December 10, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000367

Abstract

Abstract. Past research produced mixed results regarding the effect of abstract/concrete mindset on the moral judgment of hypothetical scenarios. I argued that an abstract mindset could decrease or increase deception as different lines of research suggested that the effect could be in both directions. In four experiments, three different paradigms were used to manipulate mindset and its effect on participants’ own deceptive behavior was examined. Abstract mindset manipulation increased the level of deception in Study 1 and 2, but not in Study 3. Study 4 provided an opposite result as abstractness decreased deception. The results suggested that mindset manipulation might trigger multiple mechanisms having contradictory effects. I argued that future research should account for these mechanisms and individual differences in understanding the effect of abstract mindset on moral decision-making.

References

  • Abe, N. (2009). The neurobiology of deception: Evidence from neuroimaging and loss-of-function studies. Current Opinion in Neurology, 22, 594–600. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e328332c3cf First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Abe, N. (2011). How the brain shapes deception: An integrated review of the literature. The Neuroscientist, 17, 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410393359 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Agerström, J. & Björklund, F. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27, 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.261 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Agerström, J. & Björklund, F. (2009). Temporal distance and moral concerns: Future morally questionable behavior is perceived as more wrong and evokes stronger prosocial intentions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802659885 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Agrawal, N. & Wan, E. W. (2009). Regulating risk or risking regulation? Construal levels and depletion effects in the processing of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 448–462. https://doi.org/10.1086/597331 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S. & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003065 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Byrne, R. W. & Corp, N. (2004). Neocortex size predicts deception rate in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1693–1699. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2780 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D. & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497964 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Capraro, V. (2017). Does the truth come naturally? Time pressure increases honesty in one-shot deception games. Economic Letters, 158, 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.015 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J. & Hix, H. R. (1998). The role of inhibitory processes in young children’s difficulties with deception and false belief. Child Development, 69, 672–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06236.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Christ, S. E., Van Essen, D. C., Watson, J. M., Brubaker, L. E. & McDermott, K. B. (2009). The contributions of prefrontal cortex and executive control to deception: Evidence from activation likelihood estimate meta-analyses. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1557–1566. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn189 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Conway, P. & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212442394 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Evans, A. D. & Lee, K. (2013). Emergence of lying in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1958–1963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031409 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Evans, A. D., Xu, F. & Lee, K. (2011). When all signs point to you: Lies told in the face of evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020787 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eyal, T. & Liberman, N. (2012). Morality and psychological distance: A construal level theory perspective. In M. MikulincerP. R. ShaverEds., The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Herzliya series on personality and social psychology (pp. 185–202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eyal, T., Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eyal, T., Liberman, N. & Trope, Y (2014). Thinking of why a transgression occurred may draw attention to extenuating circumstances [Commentary on “Replication of experiments evaluation impact of psychological distance on moral judgment”]. Social Psychology, 45, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000206 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P. & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fujita, K. & Carnevale, J. J. (2012). Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412449169 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fujita, K. & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02372.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fujita, K. & Roberts, J. C. (2010). Promoting prospective self-control through abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.013 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fujita, K. & Sasota, J. A. (2011). The effects of construal levels on asymmetric temptation-goal cognitive associations. Social Cognition, 29, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.125 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N. & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gamliel, E., Kreiner, H. & McElroy, T. (2017). The effect of construal level on unethical behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1208139 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gino, F. & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026406 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gino, F., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20, 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L. & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95, 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828662 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gong, H. & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 628–638. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gong, H. & Medin, D. L. (2014). Commentary on Žeželj and Jokić (2014) [Commentary on “Replication of experiments evaluation impact of psychological distance on moral judgment”]. Social Psychology, 45, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000206 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hala, S. & Russell, J. (2001). Executive control within strategic deception: A window on early cognitive development? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 112–141. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2627 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Henderson, M. D. (2013). When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 676–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, W., Friese, M. & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holyoak, K. J. & Powell, D. (2016). Deontological coherence: A framework for commonsense moral reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1179–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000075 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hughes, C. J., Farrow, T. F., Hopwood, M. C., Pratt, A., Hunter, M. D. & Spence, S. A. (2005). Recent developments in deception research. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1, 273–279. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340005774575118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahn, D. T. & Björklund, F. (2017). Judging those closest from afar: The effect of psychological distance and abstraction on value–judgment correspondence in responses to ingroup moral transgressions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000248 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Körner, A. & Volk, S. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kozel, F. A., Padgett, T. M. & George, M. S. (2004). A replication study of the neural correlates of deception. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 852–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.118.4.852 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kubovy, M. & Psotka, J. (1976). The predominance of seven and the apparent spontaneity of numerical choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.2.291 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lee, K. (2013). Little liars: Development of verbal deception in children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12023 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ledgerwood, A. (2014). Evaluations in their social context: Distance regulates consistency and context dependency. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12123 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ledgerwood, A. & Callahan, S. P. (2012). The social side of abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23, 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435920 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y. & Chaiken, S. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019843 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Liberman, N., Trope, Y. & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In E. T. HigginsA. W. KruglanskiEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353–381). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Litman, L., Robinson, J. & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E. & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 594–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp. 2009.02.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nahari, G., Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L. & Vernham, Z. (2014). Did somebody see it? Applying the verifiability approach to insurance claim interviews. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11, 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1417 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nahari, G., Vrij, A. & Fisher, R. P. (2014). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2974 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nuñez, J. M., Casey, B. J., Egner, T., Hare, T. & Hirsch, J. (2005). Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control. NeuroImage, 25, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.041 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Polak, A. & Harris, P. L. (1999). Deception by young children following noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 35, 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.561 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rogers, T. & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of ‘should’ choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.08.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schmeichel, B. J. & Vohs, K. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014635 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D. & Duke, S. C. (2011). Self-control at high and low levels of mental construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385955 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schweitzer, M. E. & Hsee, C. K. (2002). Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020647814263 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shalvi, S. (2012). Dishonestly increasing the likelihood of winning. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 292–303. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J. & De Dreu, C. K. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Spence, S. A., Kaylor-Hughes, C., Farrow, T. F. & Wilkinson, I. D. (2008). Speaking of secrets and lies: The contribution of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to vocal deception. NeuroImage, 40, 1411–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.035 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Talwar, V., Gordon, H. M. & Lee, K. (2007). Lying in the elementary school years: Verbal deception and its relation to second-order belief understanding. Developmental Psychology, 43, 804–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.804 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Talwar, V. & Lee, K. (2008). Social and cognitive correlates of children’s lying behavior. Child Development, 79, 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01164.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vallacher, R. R. & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vallacher, R. R. & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van’t Veer, A. E., Stel, M. & van Beest, I. (2014). Limited capacity to lie: Cognitive load interferes with being dishonest. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(3), 199–206. Retrieved from http://journal.sjdm.org/13/131120/jdm131120.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. West Sussex: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Žeželj, I. L. & Jokić, B. R. (2014). Replication of experiments evaluating impact of psychological distance on moral judgment. Social Psychology, 45, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000188 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M. & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X First citation in articleGoogle Scholar