Laughter and lies: Unraveling the intricacies of humor and deception.

Deception and humor are ubiquitous in interpersonal interactions and intricately interrelated. In this article, we review and integrate prior research on humor and deception and propose a theoretical model - the Interpersonal Humor Deception Model (IHDM) - to understand the interpersonal effects of humor on deception. We argue that humor can both promote and curtail the use of deception, as well as influence the detection of deception and responses to detected deception (retraction, retaliation, and the restoration of trust). The specific effects of humor depend on whether it is successful or unsuccessful. In all, our article provides a theoretical framework to guide research on humor and deception and offers important insights into the costs and benefits of humor in negotiations, organizations, and everyday life.

Deception in negotiations: Insights and opportunities.

Deception pervades negotiations and shapes both the negotiation process and outcomes. In this article, we review recent scholarship investigating deception in negotiations. We offer an integrative review of recent theoretical and empirical research, and we argue that the dominant experimental paradigms that scholars have used to study deception have limited our understanding of deception in negotiations. We call for future work to develop new paradigms to investigate the role of relationships, reputations, emotions, and negotiation experience. We also call for future work to expand our understanding of practical prescriptions to curtail a negotiator's risk of being deceived.

Counterfactual and Factual Reflection: The Influence of Past Misdeeds on Future Immoral Behavior.

Though the decision to behave immorally is situated within the context of prior immoral behavior, research has provided contradictory insights into this process. In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that the effects of prior immoral behavior depend on how individuals think about, or reflect on, their immoral behavior. In Experiment 1, participants who reflected counterfactually on their prior moral lapses morally disengaged (i.e., rationalized) less than participants who reflected factually. In Experiment 2, participants who reflected counterfactually on their prior moral lapses experienced more guilt than those who reflected factually. Finally, in Experiments 3 and 4, participants who reflected counterfactually lied less on unrelated tasks with real monetary stakes than those who reflected factually. Our studies provide important insights into moral rationalization and moral compensation processes and demonstrate the profound influence of reflection in everyday moral life.