Moffett's proposal “to establish a comparative study of societies” is notable for its comprehensive definition of societies, which includes shared group identification and group social interactions. This definition involves psychological and social processes, cognitive and emotional elements, through which individuals align themselves with a group, adopting norms, values, beliefs, and behaviors. Inspired by Durkheim (Reference Durkheim1912), Moffett emphasizes that “…much of human intergroup cognition likely evolved in the context of societies” and discusses how patterns of cooperation and conflict could help understand deceptive behavior and its management, something essential for maintaining social cohesion and collective action. Furthermore, Moffett mentions, albeit briefly, psychological properties related to group formation, such as perceptions of belongingness, pertinent for comprehending how individuals identify with and regulate behavior within social groups, including processes related to deceptive behavior.

There are two aspects of deceptive behavior that can be facilitated by Moffett's framework; first, how does deceptive behavior (Mitkidis et al., Reference Mitkidis, Perkovic, Nichols, Elbæk, Gerlach and Ariely2023) arise and evolve within societies (human groups) where opportunities for cooperation or signs of conflict appear? Second, could collaborative deceptive behavior, alias collaborative corruption (Karg, Kim, Mitkidis, & Young, Reference Karg, Kim, Mitkidis and Young2023; Weisel & Shalvi, Reference Weisel and Shalvi2015) be explained by a comparative study of societies, where interpersonal commitment (Michael & Sebanz, Reference Michael and Sebanz2016; Zickfeld et al., Reference Zickfeld, Karg, Engen, Gonzalez, Michael and Mitkidis2024) and a sense of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995) take place?

Regarding the rise and evolution of deceptive behavior within groups with (1) clearly recognized memberships (2) capable of lasting generations, and (3) maintaining primary control over defined spaces, one aspect to consider is strategic deception within the context of cooperation or competition, which suggests that deceptive strategies may have conferred fitness and selective advantages in ancestral environments (McNally & Jackson, Reference McNally and Jackson2013; Sarkadi, Rutherford, McBurney, Parsons, & Rahwan, Reference Sarkadi, Rutherford, McBurney, Parsons and Rahwan2021). In early human societies, characterized by resource scarcity and intense competition for survival (Allen, Bettinger, Codding, Jones, & Schwitalla, Reference Allen, Bettinger, Codding, Jones and Schwitalla2016), deception would have been beneficial for groups of individuals to gain resources and social status, cultivate alliances, and navigate complex social interactions. Furthermore, social and ethical norms, as well as power dynamics within societies, may have influenced deceptive behavior and its adaptation. For example, cross-cultural differences in deceptive practices (Dorrough, Köbis, Irlenbusch, Shalvi, & Glöckner, Reference Dorrough, Köbis, Irlenbusch, Shalvi and Glöckner2023; Gächter & Schulz, Reference Gächter and Schulz2016; Pascual-Ezama et al., Reference Pascual-Ezama, Fosgaard, Cardenas, Kujal, Veszteg, de Liaño and Branas-Garza2015) could be attributed to these diverse social dynamics. Leaders using deception to maintain control (Holan, Reference Holan2015; Mearsheimer, Reference Mearsheimer2011), and marginalized individuals or subgroups engaging in deceptive or other antisocial or self-destructive behaviors to increase survival and maintain their identity within the societal framework (Belmi, Barragan, Neale, & Cohen, Reference Belmi, Barragan, Neale and Cohen2015; Factor, Kawachi, & Williams, Reference Factor, Kawachi and Williams2011), may also be influenced by varying social norms. Historical examples of economic fraud, political intrigue, and social manipulation, such as the Enron scandal, Machiavelian tactics, or propaganda of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia) can provide insights and demonstrate the adaptive nature of deceptive behavior within human societies.

A comparative study of societies can also investigate how the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and commitment, group cohesion, and power structures affect collaborative deceptive behavior. Prior research has shown that an individual's commitment to other individuals (the group) influences their willingness to engage in deceptive behavior (Zickfeld et al., Reference Zickfeld, Karg, Engen, Gonzalez, Michael and Mitkidis2024). Prior research has also hypothesized about the need to belong “as a fundamental human motivation” (Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995). These perceptions of inclusion, acceptance, and loyalty to the group might influence attitudes and behaviors toward honesty, transparency, and accountability (Galak & Critcher, Reference Galak and Critcher2023; Thielmann, Böhm, & Hilbig, Reference Thielmann, Böhm and Hilbig2021; Zickfeld et al., Reference Zickfeld, Karg, Engen, Gonzalez, Michael and Mitkidis2024). For instance, historical cases such as political alliances in monarchies (i.e., the Medici family of Florence in Renaissance) or corporate collusion (i.e., the Libor rate manipulation scandal in the early 2010s, see Vaughan & Finch, Reference Vaughan and Finch2017) reveal how shared goals (Mitkidis, Sørensen, Nielbo, Andersen, & Lienard, Reference Mitkidis, Sørensen, Nielbo, Andersen and Lienard2013), verbal communication (Tønnesen, Elbæk, Pfattheicher, & Mitkidis, Reference Tønnesen, Elbæk, Pfattheicher and Mitkidis2024), and a strong sense of belonging can drive collaborative deceptive practices to maintain power or competitive advantage of one group over another, within controlled spaces, sometimes enduring for generations. Such a holistic view about society is necessary to analyze how different societal structures, cultural norms, and historical contexts shape patterns of deceptive behavior, interpersonal commitment, and group cohesion across diverse groups.

Finally, the interconnections between deceptive societal contexts and individual deceptive behavior can be investigated using Moffett's framework, by studying individuals within their societal contexts. For example, earlier work has shown that deceptive environments, that is, societal settings where “an individual might be deceived,” do not negatively affect individual deceptive behavior, but when such behavior is visible, deception decreases (Mitkidis et al., Reference Mitkidis, Perkovic, Nichols, Elbæk, Gerlach and Ariely2023). I believe that exploring the evolutionary and psychological mechanisms underlying deceptive behavior within the social realm, using cross-disciplinary methods from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics, might be the only way to provide a deeper understanding of the factors influencing such behavior, grasp how individual deceptive behavior intersects with societal dynamics, and inform strategies for mitigating such practices, addressing ethical dilemmas, and promoting future research, ethical conduct, and social cooperation.