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: |
Cambridge University Press
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008561/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797696356022747136 |
|---|---|
| author | Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka |
| author_facet | Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka |
| author_sort | Petr Houdek |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:25:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-97f405fdcd9c4cb79fcda4db99d0361e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:25:13Z |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-97f405fdcd9c4cb79fcda4db99d0361e2023-09-03T13:42:59ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752021-03-011623826610.1017/S1930297500008561Selection effects on dishonest behaviorPetr Houdek0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-6635Štěpán Bahníkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0579-6808Marek Hudík1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1670-2555Marek Vranka2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-9062Faculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech RepublicFaculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech RepublicFaculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech RepublicIn 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.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008561/type/journal_articlecheatingself-selectionbehavioral ethicshonesty-humility |
| spellingShingle | Petr Houdek Štěpán Bahník Marek Hudík Marek Vranka Selection effects on dishonest behavior Judgment and Decision Making cheating self-selection behavioral ethics honesty-humility |
| title | 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_short | Selection effects on dishonest behavior |
| title_sort | selection effects on dishonest behavior |
| topic | cheating self-selection behavioral ethics honesty-humility |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008561/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT petrhoudek selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT stepanbahnik selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT marekhudik selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior AT marekvranka selectioneffectsondishonestbehavior |