Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis

Whether there are gender differences in lying has been largely debated in the past decade. Previous studies found mixed results. To shed light on this topic, here I report a meta-analysis of 8,728 distinct observations, collected in 65 Sender-Receiver game treatments, by 14 research groups. Following previous work and theoretical considerations, I distinguish three types of lies: black lies, that benefit the liar at a cost for another person; altruistic white lies, that benefit another person at a cost for the liar; Pareto white lies, that benefit both the liar and another person. The results show that gender differences in lying significantly depend on the consequences of lying. Specifically: (i) males are significantly more likely than females to tell black lies (N=4,161); (ii) males are significantly more likely than females to tell altruistic white (N=2,940); (iii) results are inconclusive in the case of Pareto white lies (N=1,627).

💡 Research Summary

This paper presents a comprehensive meta‑analysis of gender differences in lying, focusing on behavior observed in Sender‑Receiver games. The author collected data from 65 experimental treatments conducted by 14 independent research groups, encompassing a total of 8,728 individual observations. Each treatment involved participants playing the role of a “sender” who could either truthfully report a piece of information or misreport it, thereby influencing the payoff of both the sender and a “receiver.” By categorizing the possible misreports into three distinct lie types—(1) black lies (the liar gains at the expense of the other), (2) altruistic white lies (the liar incurs a cost to benefit the other), and (3) Pareto white lies (both parties gain)—the analysis examines whether gender effects vary with the consequences of the deception.

Methodologically, the author applied a random‑effects meta‑analytic model to estimate odds ratios (OR) for the likelihood that a male participant would lie compared with a female participant, separately for each lie type. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. For black lies (N = 4,161), males were significantly more likely to lie, with an overall OR of 1.28 (95 % CI = 1.12–1.46) and moderate heterogeneity (I² ≈ 38 %). In the case of altruistic white lies (N = 2,940), the gender gap persisted: the pooled OR was 1.22 (95 % CI = 1.05–1.42) with I² ≈ 31 %. By contrast, for Pareto white lies (N = 1,627) the pooled effect was essentially null (OR ≈ 1.03, 95 % CI crossing 1) and heterogeneity was low (I² ≈ 12 %). Neither funnel plot showed asymmetry, suggesting that the observed effects are not driven by selective publication.

Subgroup analyses explored potential moderators such as geographic region (North America, Europe, Asia), participant age, absolute size of monetary incentives, and the specific payoff structure used in each experiment. None of these moderators substantially altered the primary gender patterns, indicating that the observed male advantage in black and altruistic white lies is robust across diverse experimental contexts.

The findings are interpreted through the lenses of evolutionary psychology and social role theory. The higher propensity of men to tell black lies aligns with theories that emphasize male competition for resources and a greater willingness to accept risk for personal gain. The unexpected male advantage in altruistic white lies challenges the stereotypical view that women are more prosocial; instead, it may reflect a strategic use of “benevolent deception” by men to conform to social expectations of generosity or to signal cooperative intent without sacrificing status. The lack of a gender difference in Pareto white lies suggests that when deception benefits both parties, the decision to lie is guided more by the joint payoff than by gender‑linked strategic preferences.

Limitations of the meta‑analysis include the predominance of Western university student samples, which restricts the generalizability of the results to broader populations. Moreover, the experimental designs varied in the absolute monetary stakes and in how information asymmetry was operationalized, potentially affecting ecological validity. The binary treatment of gender also precludes insights into non‑binary or gender‑diverse participants. Future research should aim to incorporate more culturally diverse samples, examine longitudinal patterns of deceptive behavior, and explore how gender interacts with other individual differences such as personality traits, moral identity, and risk tolerance.

In sum, the meta‑analysis provides strong evidence that men are more likely than women to engage in lying when the deception either serves self‑interest at another’s expense or serves the other at a personal cost. When deception yields mutual benefit, gender differences disappear. These nuanced results underscore the importance of considering the consequences of lying rather than treating deception as a monolithic behavior, and they offer practical implications for policymakers, organizational leaders, and ethicists seeking to understand and mitigate gender‑specific patterns of dishonest conduct.