Selection effects on dishonest behavior
In many situations people behave ethically, while elsewhere dishonesty reigns. Studies of the determinants of unethical behavior often use random assignment of participants in various conditions to identify contextual or psychological factors influencing dishonesty. However, in many real-world conte...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
2021-03-01
|
Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200824b/jdm200824b.pdf |
id |
doaj-601e027fc5ae4e07b90c0daf65b45b3b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-601e027fc5ae4e07b90c0daf65b45b3b2021-05-03T04:26:03ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752021-03-01162238266Selection effects on dishonest behaviorPetr HoudekŠtěpán BahníkMarek HudíkMarek VrankaIn many situations people behave ethically, while elsewhere dishonesty reigns. Studies of the determinants of unethical behavior often use random assignment of participants in various conditions to identify contextual or psychological factors influencing dishonesty. However, in many real-world contexts, people deliberately choose or avoid specific environments. In three experiments (total N = 2,124) enabling self-selection of participants in two similar tasks, one of which allowed for cheating, we found that participants who chose the task where they could lie for financial gain reported a higher number of correct predictions than those who were assigned it at random. Introduction of financial costs for entering the cheating-allowing task led to a decrease in interest in the task; however, it also led to more intense cheating. An intervention aimed to discourage participants from choosing the cheating-enabling environment based on social norm information did not have the expected effect; on the contrary, it backfired. In summary, the results suggest that people low in moral character are likely to eventually dominate cheating-enabling environments, where they then cheat extensively. Interventions trying to limit the preference of this environment may not have the expected effect as they could lead to the selection of the worst fraudsters.http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200824b/jdm200824b.pdfcheating self-selection behavioral ethics honesty-humilitynakeywords |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka |
spellingShingle |
Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka Selection effects on dishonest behavior Judgment and Decision Making cheating self-selection behavioral ethics honesty-humilitynakeywords |
author_facet |
Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka |
author_sort |
Petr Houdek |
title |
Selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
title_short |
Selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
title_full |
Selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
title_fullStr |
Selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
title_full_unstemmed |
Selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
title_sort |
selection effects on
dishonest behavior |
publisher |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making |
series |
Judgment and Decision Making |
issn |
1930-2975 |
publishDate |
2021-03-01 |
description |
In many situations
people behave ethically, while elsewhere dishonesty reigns. Studies of the
determinants of unethical behavior often use random assignment of participants
in various conditions to identify contextual or psychological factors
influencing dishonesty. However, in many real-world contexts, people
deliberately choose or avoid specific environments. In three experiments (total
N = 2,124) enabling self-selection of participants in two similar tasks, one of
which allowed for cheating, we found that participants who chose the task where
they could lie for financial gain reported a higher number of correct
predictions than those who were assigned it at random. Introduction of
financial costs for entering the cheating-allowing task led to a decrease in
interest in the task; however, it also led to more intense cheating. An
intervention aimed to discourage participants from choosing the
cheating-enabling environment based on social norm information did not have the
expected effect; on the contrary, it backfired. In summary, the results suggest
that people low in moral character are likely to eventually dominate
cheating-enabling environments, where they then cheat extensively.
Interventions trying to limit the preference of this environment may not have
the expected effect as they could lead to the selection of the worst
fraudsters. |
topic |
cheating self-selection behavioral ethics honesty-humilitynakeywords |
url |
http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200824b/jdm200824b.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT petrhoudek selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT stepanbahnik selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT marekhudik selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT marekvranka selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior |
_version_ |
1721484227264905216 |