Self-deception as self-signaling:a model and experimental evidence

Kyle Krueger, Michael Ritchie, and Lance Braud

Self-Deception

Gur & Sackeim’s (1979) definitionAn individual: holds two contradictory beliefs holds them simultaneously is unaware of holding one of the beliefs is motivated to remain unaware of that

belief

Motivational Bias Explanation There is no conscious intention to self-

deceive. Instead, an individual makes judgments based on unconscious motivations.

Examples Self-serving bias

Attributing successes to internal factors, and failures to external factors

Confirmation bias Tendency to interpret events (our own actions) in

ways that confirm our beliefs

Self-Signaling Theory

Our choices affect our beliefs A choice not only causes an action, it

also expresses a belief Levels of Belief

Deep belief State belief Experienced belief

Self-Signaling Theory Levels of Belief

Deep belief Stated belief Experienced belief

If stated belief does not match deep belief, then there is attempted self-deception

If experienced belief is equal to stated belief, it is a successful self-deception.

Self-Signaling vs Motivational Bias Motivational bias does not account for

three characteristics of self-deception Defensiveness associated with challenged

beliefs The special significance of beliefs about the

self You wouldn’t state that someone was guilty of

self-deception if they were convinced the moon landing wasn’t real

Self-deception can fail A bias should necessarily alter belief

The Self-Signaling Formal Model

Bodner & Prelec (1995) Model of non-causal motivation

Three primary assumptions1. There exists a characteristic that is

personally important2. This is not possible to introspectively

evaluate3. It can be examined through one’s actions

The Formal Model of Self-Signaling

V(x, θO) = u(x, θO) + λ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

The Self-Signaling Formal Model

x = the action or outcome θO = the “deep” belief about some characteristic θ = the experienced belief about some characteristic λ = the individual’s level of self-deception

V(x, θO) = u(x, θO) + λ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

The total utility of an action is equal

to

the generated utility of an action, plus

the diagnostic utility of an action

Diagnostic Utilityλ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

This must account for two emerging paradoxes1. The static state paradox

The ability to hold two opposing beliefs Explained by our two separate terms, θO and θ

2. The dynamic paradox The ability to remain unaware of a held belief To explain this, there must be two variants of self-signaling

Face-value Rational

Diagnostic Utility

λ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

Face-value Our knowledge of θO is a probability distribution, p(θ) p(θ|x) = our inferred value of θO given the action x

This is derived with the assumption that our action is to solely provide maximum outcome utility

“By choosing x I demonstrate deep beliefs such that x maximizes standard expected utility given these deep beliefs”

Diagnostic Utilityλ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

Rational Inferences about motivation are exactly the same as in

an interpersonal scenario Only paradoxical if action and belief are inconsistent

As such, belief θ influences the action x, and action x derives belief θ

Not ignorant of diagnostic utility and so can be mitigated rationally. This variation is through λ

The Formal Model Revisited

x = the action or outcome θO = the “deep” belief about some characteristic

V(x, θO) = u(x, θO) + λ∑θu(x,θ)p(θ|x)

The total utility of an action given the deep belief of a characteristic is equal to

the outcome utility of an action given a deep belief, plus

The diagnostic utility of an action, as determined by susceptibility of self-deception, the utility of an action given an experienced belief, and the change in our experienced belief given that action

The Experiment

Purpose

Designed to induce self deception in individuals, where self deception has a cost.

Designed to examine failed self deception, where the subject is aware of their own attempted self deception.

Design

Female rated symbols Male rated symbols

Phase one

85 subjects view 100 Korean symbols.

The subject classifies the symbol as male or female and then rates their confidence on a 5 point scale.

Subjects are awarded $0.02 for every correct classification.

Phase Two

The subjects are asked to predict the gender of a symbol, then they are shown the symbol and asked to confirm or reject their prediction.

Again subjects rate their confidence. $0.02 are awarded for every correct

prediction and correct guess.

$40.00 bonus

In Phase two a $40.00 bonus is awarded to 3 individuals in two different groups.

In the first test group it is awarded to the subjects with the highest number of correct post – prediction classifications.

In the second group it was awarded to the subjects with the highest rates of correct predictions.

“In the absence of self-signaling the subject will categorize the sign as male if, and only if the probabilityof male is greater

than .5. Withself - signaling, one has to factor in the diagnostic utility of selecting male.”

The subjects desire for their prediction to be accurate prompts them to self deceive.

This deception makes the subject less likely to correctly confirm or reject their prediction.

Application of the Formal Model

Stated simply: A subject will choose a confirmatory response if

there is more total utility in a confirmatory response We know there is no optimal outcome utility, so we

must examine the individual components of the equation

V(x=m, θO) - V(x=f, θO) > 0The total utility of a

confirmatory response minus

The total utility of a disconfirming

response

Is great than zero

Application of the Formal Model

c(θOm - θO

f) +

λa(E(θm|x=m) - E(θm|x=f))

The reward for choosing correctly * (the deep belief that the character is male - the deep belief that the character is female)

The degree of self-deception * the reward for correct anticipation * ((The experienced belief that the character is male given that you choose male) – (The experienced belief that the character is male given that you choose female))

Outcome Utility Diagnostic Utility

What does this mean?

λa(E(θm|x=m) - E(θm|x=f)) Face-value

As mentioned earlier, in this system x implies θm, therefore, self-deception occurs

Rational Given rational discounting of (E(θm|x=m), the

effect may be diminished, but will always be positive. There will always be confirmatory self-deception to some arbitrary degree.

Results The inconsistent responses give a baseline for

subject error. There are proportionately more self deceptive

classifications than the error baseline. The effect is greater in the anticipation group.

Results Red: Anticipation

bonus Green:

Classification bonus

At p=.001 27% of the subjects in classification group, and 45% of people in the anticipation group are self deceptive.

Results

Looking at individual changes in confidence between phase one and two: Moderately self deceptive individuals show an

increase in confidence following confirmation. +2.11

High self deceptive individuals show a decrease in confidence following disconfirmation. -1.76

It is expected that a confirming response will decrease confidence.

Results

Figure 3 shows that confirmation gives a confidence boost at moderate rates.

Results

High self deception correlates with fast response time, implying a suppression of evidence.

Discussion

Discussion Self-deception can be induced when a large,

financial award is offered People who have statistical bias achieve higher

confidence by self-deception – to a point Moderate self-deception possibly related to

increased self-esteem and mental health Many participants exhibited a statistical bias This model can be applied to intrapersonal self-

deception as well as interpersonal deception

Two Agents An actor An observer Evolutionary explanation

It is easier to deceive others in a mental state that is ignorant of the individual’s true beliefs

Goal-setting argument Two mental structures are required for successful

goal setting: one to choose which actions to take, one to evaluate and reward the self for performance.

Alternative explanations

Perceptual bias Motivationally biased perception of characters

Does not explain faster response time and is confounded by randomized presentation of stimuli

Priming Exposure to one’s prediction makes that gender

more salient during the selection phaseDoes not explain effects seen in scaling of incentive

Applications

How far does the model extend? Confirmation bias Denial Cognitive dissonance More?