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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Petr Houdek, Štěpán Bahník, Marek Hudík, Marek Vranka
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