Man crossing his fingers behind his back (© Bits and Splits - stock.adobe.com)
Study shows uncertainty might be the key to breaking self-deceptive behaviors
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A fitness tracker mysteriously logs extra steps. A calorie-counting app somehow shows lower numbers. An online quiz score seems surprisingly high. While these scenarios might seem like harmless self-improvement tools, new research reveals they represent a fascinating psychological phenomenon: we often cheat unconsciously simply to feel better about ourselves, even when there’s nothing tangible to gain.
“I found that people do cheat when there are no extrinsic incentives like money or prizes but intrinsic rewards, like feeling better about yourself,” explains Sara Dommer, assistant professor of marketing at Penn State and lead researcher of a groundbreaking study published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. “For this to work, it has to happen via diagnostic self-deception, meaning that I have to convince myself that I am actually not cheating. Doing so allows me to feel smarter, more accomplished or healthier.”
This phenomenon, which researchers call “diagnostic self-deception,” helps explain behaviors that traditional theories about cheating cannot. While previous research focused on cheating for material gain, Dommer’s work examines why people cheat even when the only reward is an enhanced self-image.
Inside the Self-Deception Experiments
Through four carefully designed studies, Dommer and her team revealed how this self-deceptive behavior works in everyday situations.
Calorie Counting Study
One of the most illuminating experiments tackled everyday calorie tracking. Researchers presented 288 undergraduate students with a three-day food diary scenario, including restaurant meals like pancakes, sandwiches, and pasta dishes. Some students received exact calorie counts from restaurant websites (e.g., “450 calories for a short stack of buttermilk pancakes”), while others only saw multiple options ranging from 300 to 560 calories.
The results showed that when students lacked specific caloric information, they consistently chose lower calorie estimates. Importantly, the study was designed so that averaging the provided calorie options would match the true caloric value. Instead, participants routinely selected lower numbers, effectively deceiving themselves about their food choices.
IQ Test Study
Another study examined intelligence self-deception using a cleverly designed IQ test. 195 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers took a multiple-choice IQ test. Half the participants saw the correct answers highlighted after a few seconds, allowing them to cheat if they wished. The other half took the test normally.
Not only did the group with access to answers score significantly higher, but they also predicted they would perform better on a future test where cheating wouldn’t be possible. Even more telling, when offered a monetary bonus for accurate predictions of their future performance, they still maintained these inflated expectations. This suggests they truly believed their enhanced scores reflected their intelligence rather than their ability to see the answers.
Anagram Study
A third study used word scrambles to measure intelligence, presenting participants with jumbled words like “konreb” (broken) and “eoshu” (house).” Some participants had to type their answers immediately, while others saw the correct answers after three minutes and were asked to self-report how many they had solved. Those who could self-report their scores claimed solving significantly more anagrams than those who had to prove their answers in real-time.
Financial Literacy Study
The final study tackled financial literacy with an interesting twist. Before taking a financial knowledge test, some participants read the statement: “MOST Americans rate themselves highly on financial knowledge, but two-thirds of American adults CANNOT pass a basic financial literacy test.” This simple reminder of uncertainty significantly reduced cheating behavior, suggesting that when people question their capabilities in an area, they become more interested in accurate self-assessment than self-enhancement.
The Results: What It All Means
These studies revealed a consistent pattern: when people could cheat without obvious external rewards, they did—but only if they could maintain the belief that their performance reflected real ability. In the calorie-tracking study, participants entered about 244 fewer calories per day when they could choose from multiple options. In the IQ test, those who could see answers scored an average of 8.82 out of 10, compared to 5.36 for the control group.
“Participants in the cheat group engaged in diagnostic self-deception and attributed their performance to themselves,” Dommer said. “The thinking goes, ‘I’m performing well because I’m smart, not because the task allowed me to cheat.'”
Importantly, this wasn’t just about inflating numbers. Participants genuinely seemed to believe in their enhanced performance. They predicted similar high scores on future tests where cheating wouldn’t be possible, rated the assessments as legitimate measures of ability, and showed increased confidence in their capabilities afterward.
This pattern only broke down when participants’ certainty about their abilities was shaken. When reminded about widespread overconfidence in financial literacy, participants’ cheating decreased significantly, and their self-assessments became more modest.
“I don’t think there’s a good cheating or a bad cheating,” Dommer said. “I just think it’s interesting that not all cheating has to be conscious, explicit and intentional. That said, these illusory self-beliefs can still be harmful, especially when assessing your financial or physical health.”
These findings give us a new understanding of why people might fudge their step counts or peek at answers during online assessments. It’s not just about hitting arbitrary goals or earning meaningless badges—it’s about maintaining and enhancing beliefs about our capabilities, even if we have to deceive ourselves to do it.
Even this seemingly harmless form of cheating comes with consequences. When people convince themselves they’re naturally gifted rather than acknowledging their shortcuts, they might avoid seeking necessary help or purchasing beneficial products and services.
“These illusory self-beliefs can be harmful, especially when assessing your financial or physical health,” Dommer warns.
The research suggests a potential solution: “How do we stop people from engaging in diagnostic self-deception and get a more accurate representation of who they are? One way is to draw their attention to uncertainty around the trait itself. This seems to mitigate the effect,” explains Dommer.
Final Takeaway: How to Avoid Self-Deception
So what’s the big takeaway, especially if you believe you might be guilty of such behavior? While self-deception can provide temporary emotional comfort, it’s worth examining our own tendencies toward unconscious cheating.
Take note when you round down calories, peek at answers, or inflate self-assessments. The goal isn’t to eliminate these behaviors entirely — they’re deeply human — but to recognize when uncertainty about our abilities might actually serve us better than false confidence.
As Dommer’s research shows, acknowledging our limitations often leads to more accurate self-assessment and, ultimately, genuine self-improvement. Companies offering self-assessment tools might consider building in reality checks or uncertainty cues to help users maintain more accurate perceptions of their abilities. After all, real growth starts with honest self-awareness, not comfortable self-deception.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The research comprised four distinct studies with different participant pools and methodologies. Study participants included undergraduate students and Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, with sample sizes ranging from 195 to 379 individuals. Each study employed different tasks (calorie counting, IQ tests, anagrams, financial literacy assessments) where participants had opportunities to cheat, with various measures tracking both performance and self-perception changes.
Results
Across all four studies, participants consistently performed better when given opportunities to cheat for intrinsic rewards. They subsequently showed evidence of diagnostic self-deception by predicting similar performance on future non-cheating tasks, believing in the legitimacy of the assessments, and enhancing their self-perceptions in the relevant domains.
Limitations
The research primarily focused on relatively low-stakes scenarios and relied heavily on self-reported measures. Additionally, the participant pools may not fully represent broader populations, and the laboratory/online settings might not perfectly mirror real-world cheating behaviors.
Discussion and Takeaways
This research reveals that people readily cheat to enhance self-perception when they can convince themselves their improved performance reflects genuine ability. This tendency diminishes when uncertainty about self-aspects is heightened, suggesting a potential intervention strategy for reducing such behaviors.
Funding and Disclosures
The research was conducted at Penn State Smeal College of Business. No specific funding sources or conflicts of interest were disclosed in the paper.
Publication Information
Published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2025, by Sara Loughran Dommer from Penn State Smeal College of Business.
This could explain DEI study results and the Dunning-Kruger Effect . . .
Applying Your Research on Self-Deception to Broader Societal Trends
Dear Professor Dommer,
I found your study on diagnostic self-deception to be a fascinating exploration of how people unconsciously alter their perceptions to maintain a positive self-image. Your work got me thinking about how this phenomenon extends beyond individual self-perception and manifests in broader social trends, particularly in areas where measurements are manipulated to fit changing realities rather than reflect objective truth. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how your research might apply to the following three societal trends.
The Shift in Women’s Clothing Sizes and the Measurement of Body Image
Over the past few decades, clothing manufacturers have adjusted women’s sizing charts to accommodate an increasingly overweight American population. What used to be a size 12 in the 1950s is now closer to a size 6 or 8 today. This phenomenon, often referred to as vanity sizing, allows consumers to purchase clothing with smaller size labels, reinforcing a positive self-perception even when actual body size has increased.
The parallel to your research is striking. Just as individuals unconsciously underestimate their calorie intake or overestimate their IQ performance, clothing brands have provided a mechanism that allows consumers to avoid the discomfort of confronting an objective reality. Instead of acknowledging weight gain, consumers are reassured by a false measurement, which can, in turn, discourage efforts toward genuine health improvements.
Would it be accurate to say that this reflects a societal-scale version of diagnostic self-deception, where instead of individuals rounding down their calorie intake, entire industries adjust their metrics to maintain public confidence?
Height-Boosting Footwear and the Self-Deception of Shorter Men
Another example of self-enhancing measurement adjustment is the increasing market for men’s shoes that add extra height—whether through hidden lifts, thicker soles, or outright elevator shoes. The practice itself is not new, but modern marketing has framed these shoes as a way to “level the playing field” rather than an outright deception.
This behavior closely mirrors the IQ test study in your research, where individuals convinced themselves that their scores reflected actual intelligence rather than an advantage from external assistance. Many men who wear height-boosting shoes rationalize the practice by saying, “It’s just enhancing my natural height,” much like a participant in your study might believe they are genuinely intelligent rather than benefiting from seeing the correct answers.
Would you consider this another example of diagnostic self-deception—one in which individuals engage in a behavior to alter self-perception while maintaining plausible deniability about the deception itself?
The Creation of a Fake Dollar to Inflate Perceptions of American Wealth and Power
Perhaps the most profound example of a measurement being altered to sustain a false self-image is the transition from gold and silver-backed dollars to fiat Federal Reserve Notes.
From 1792 to 1913, the word “dollar” had an objective definition: a fixed weight of gold or silver. But in 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the United States began replacing real dollars (backed by tangible assets) with fiat currency (promissory notes controlled by a central banking cartel).
Over time, just as vanity sizing convinced consumers they were smaller than they actually were, and as height-boosting shoes convinced men they were taller than they actually were, the fiat system convinced Americans they were wealthier than they actually were. The country’s “wealth” became measured in an ever-expanding supply of paper notes, rather than the actual goods, services, and production backing them.
This shift closely aligns with your findings on uncertain measurement encouraging self-deception. Just as participants in your calorie-tracking study chose the lowest plausible estimate when given a range of numbers, Americans accepted a fiat dollar’s purchasing power as equivalent to a gold-backed dollar because the exact difference was unclear.
The result? A false self-perception of economic strength, much like your IQ test participants predicting they would score highly on a future test where cheating would not be possible. The illusion works—until the moment reality asserts itself, just as it does when a dieter realizes their weight has not changed despite what their clothing size suggests.
Would you consider this example to be a macroeconomic parallel to the individual behaviors you studied? If so, what interventions might disrupt this cycle of societal self-deception in the same way that reminders of uncertainty mitigated cheating in your financial literacy study?
I greatly appreciate your research and look forward to any thoughts you might have on how these larger societal trends fit within the framework of diagnostic self-deception.
Best regards,
Zachary Moore
LOL or be autistic, where you already mentally run through all these scenarios and realize “Duh, I’ll appear smarter if I game the test!”
It all comes down to very specifically what you ask of the candidate, and if the candidate asks for the rules, they will either be completely met to fulfill the task, or the results will show that they ignored the rules and answered honestly 😛
It sems they are speculating on the motivation of the cheater. Maybe they don’t care is they are feeling smart as long as they seem to win. Higher scores are better, knowing you are right by peaking at an answer, then adjusting the answer to match, may be compulsion to score better not a need to feel anyway smarter. Maybe feeling or telling yourself that you are smarter is not the motivation but others telling your smart and here is the proof or controlling the perception of the test giver is the motivation.
I only scanned the article, and did not see anything about the inferiority complexes and the insecurities that these people have in abundance.
I think the title to this article is horribly incorrect. It has nothing to do with why “smart people” cheat, at least not as reported. It has more to do with why “people cheat”. Nowhere did I see that “smart people” had a greater propensity to cheat.
Was the sample the usual cohort of college students signed-up to be paid subjects by the psych dept?
If they cheat, how smart can they be? Clowns!
Every human is animated according to a role they are assigned to play in “God’s” finished plot, where cheaters cheat, liars lie and robbers rob… until they return behind the veil.