Einav Hart

Oxytocin Decreases Accuracy in the Perception of Social Deception

Social norms, business etiquette, and common courtesy often compel us to mask selfish intentions under the guise of friendliness. Discerning others’ true intentions has important implications for selecting partners in all circles of life—business, friendship, and love (Trivers, 1985). However, intentions cannot be measured directly. Moreover, people are not always sincere in their signaled intentions. Thus, we often rely on external cues such as facial expressions, body language, and vocal tone to determine if ostensibly cooperative cues are, in reality, veiled acts of deception (DePaulo & Morris, 2004; Ekman & Friesen, 1969). How good are we at recognizing what is lurking under the facade of a trusting face? In general, our proficiency in judging the authenticity of cooperative expressions often fares little better than chance (Belot, Bhaskar, & van de Ven, 2012; Bond & DePaulo, 2006). This research examined whether the neuropeptide oxytocin—known for its wide-ranging effects on social cognition and behavior (Meyer-Lindenberg, Domes, Kirsch, & Heinrichs, 2011)—influences individuals’ ability to discern between truth tellers and deceivers. Previous studies have detailed the influence of oxytocin in social contexts (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2011); however, its role in the detection of social deception is still unknown. Exogenous administration of oxytocin in economic exchanges increases trust and social approach, an effect moderated by cooperative incentives and group membership (Declerck, Boone, & Kiyonari, 2010; De Dreu et al., 2010; Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2005; Mikolajczak et al., 2010). In social-recognition tasks, exogenous administration of oxytocin promotes gaze to the eye region, improves identification of expressed emotions, and increases perceptions of trustworthiness (Bartz, Zaki, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2011). These results raise the possibility that oxytocin facilitates attention to social signals, making them more salient and rewarding (Groppe et al., 2013). How these socioaffective effects translate to the complex context of discerning cooperative intentions is unclear. Interpreting trust-relevant signals involves integrating vocal tone and content with context-dependent intuitive assessments of facial expressions, body language, and other subtle nonverbal cues (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; DeSteno et al., 2012). To clarify the role of oxytocin in this complex and dynamic context, we had subjects watch clips of TV-show contestants making voluntary and spontaneous proclamations of their trustworthiness in an adaptation of the prisoner’s dilemma in return for monetary rewards of up to several thousand dollars. Because contestants’ rewards were contingent on both their own and their partners’ decisions, contestants regularly attempted to elicit cooperative behavior by conveying seemingly trustworthy, yet potentially deceitful, intentions. Subjects received monetary compensation for accurately predicting which contestants did in fact cooperate and which did not.

To Cheat or Not To Cheat: Tryptophan Hydroxylase 2 SNP Variants Contribute to Dishonest Behavior.

Although, lying (bear false witness) is explicitly prohibited in the Decalogue and a focus of interest in philosophy and theology, more recently the behavioral and neural mechanisms of deception are gaining increasing attention from diverse fields especially economics, psychology, and neuroscience. Despite the considerable role of heredity in explaining individual differences in deceptive behavior, few studies have investigated which specific genes contribute to the heterogeneity of lying behavior across individuals. Also, little is known concerning which specific neurotransmitter pathways underlie deception. Toward addressing these two key questions, we implemented a neurogenetic strategy and modeled deception by an incentivized die-under-cup task in a laboratory setting. The results of this exploratory study provide provisional evidence that SNP variants across the tryptophan hydroxylase 2 (TPH2) gene, that encodes the rate-limiting enzyme in the biosynthesis of brain serotonin, contribute to individual differences in deceptive behavior.

In a Conflict State of Mind: How Do People Act Upon Their Expectations of Conflict?

Conflict arises when people have different goals or interests. People often expect conflict to arise in social interactions, and may use various tactics to avoid conflict or manage it once it emerg...

Getting Less: When Negotiating Harms Post-Agreement Performance

In contrast to prior work that has assumed that negotiated agreements represent the economic value of negotiation outcomes, we demonstrate that the negotiation process can influence post-agreement behavior in a way that changes the economic value of the agreement. Our findings have particular relevance for negotiations for services, and fill a critical gap in our understanding of how negotiations influence performance. Across four studies, we demonstrate that negotiations can harm post-agreement behavior on both effortful and creative tasks. Specifically, we find that wage negotiations can harm productivity. Perceptions of conflict mediate the relationship between engaging in a negotiation and diminished motivation. Compared to not negotiating, individuals who negotiate may secure favorable deal terms, but risk incurring affective, relational, and economic costs. We call for future work to explore negotiations across a broader context of domains (e.g., negotiations for services in addition to goods) and to investigate how the negotiation process affects subsequent behavior (e.g., the provision of services). Our findings suggest that individuals should enter negotiations with caution.