Choice architecture in conflicts of interest: Defaults as physical and psychological barriers to (dis)honesty

Mažar, Nina; Hawkins, Sean

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.004

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In many cases, whether a decision requires active participation or passive acceptance matters a great deal for how people act and it is, therefore, an important micro‐environmental mechanism to include when attempting to understand (mis)behaviour. Mazar and Hawkins () find that passively accepting an incorrect default leads to more cheating than situations where the default has to be overwritten to cheat. This finding suggests that the manner in which dishonesty is performed (passively or actively) matters.…”

Section: Results: What Mechanisms Make People Dishonest?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Jacobsen

Fosgaard

Pascual‐Ezama

2017

Journal of Economic Surveys

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, a massive body of research has been devoted to uncovering human dishonesty. In the present paper, we review more than a hundred papers from this literature and provide a comprehensive overview by first listing the existing theoretical frameworks, and then covering the common empirical approaches, synthesizing the demographic and personal characteristics of those who cheat, identifying the behavioural mechanisms found that affect dishonesty and finally we finish by discussing how the empirical evidence fit theory. Overall, the review concludes that many people behave dishonestly, but also that it is a highly malleable behavior sensitive to elements such as decision contexts, behaviour of others, state of mind and depletion. The review can be used as an overview of the dishonesty literature or as a guide or work of reference for selected topics of interest.

show abstract

Section: Results: What Mechanisms Make People Dishonest?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Jacobsen

Fosgaard

Pascual‐Ezama

2017

Journal of Economic Surveys

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, a default option interpretation for this subset of the results cannot be entirely ruled out. Indeed, one possibility is that violating the default norm is part of what makes taking an aversive action (Baron & Ritov, 2004;Mazar & Hawkins, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cruel to be kind but not cruel for cash: Harm aversion in the dictator game

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People regularly take prosocial actions, making individual sacrifices for the greater good.Similarly, people generally avoid causing harm to others. These twin desires to do good and avoid harm often align, but can sometimes diverge, creating situations of moral conflict.Here, we examined this moral conflict using a modified dictator game. Participants chose how much money to allocate away from a recipient, who was designated as an orphan, creating a sense of harm. This money was then re-allocated to either the participant or a charity. People were strongly prosocial: they allocated more money away from the orphan for charity than for themselves. Furthermore, people left more money with the orphan when the harm was framed as a means (taking) than as a side effect (splitting). As predicted by dualprocess theories of moral decision making, response times were longer with the take action and positively correlated with the amount taken from the orphan. We conclude that just as people take positive actions for the greater good, they are similarly more willing to cause harm when it benefits others rather than themselves.

show abstract

“…2 (6) Immoral means easily available: Even when a person has no (more) "inner constraints" to inhibit a selfish desire, external factors such as lack of time or money, as well as social (e.g., one's partner) and physical (e.g., prison bars) barriers, can keep the person from enacting the desire. This factor is closely related to the emerging literature on choice architecture and nudging, which typically tries to identify and implement factors that render the immoral option less accessible or more difficult to carry out (Mazar & Hawkins, 2015;Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). An important avenue for future research is to better understand how such external nudges interact with internal factors such as the accessibility of moral values (e.g., Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012).…”

Section: The Self-control → Morality Linkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morality and Self-Control: How They Are Intertwined and Where They Differ

Hofmann

Meindl

Mooijman

et al. 2018

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite sharing conceptual overlap, morality and self-control research have led largely separate lives. In this article, we highlight neglected connections between these major areas of psychology. To this end, we first note their conceptual similarities and differences. We then show how morality research, typically emphasizing aspects of moral cognition and emotion, may benefit from incorporating motivational concepts from self-control research. Similarly, selfcontrol research may benefit from a better understanding of the moral nature of many selfcontrol domains. We place special focus on various components of self-control and on the ways in which self-control goals may be moralized.

show abstract

Choice architecture in conflicts of interest: Defaults as physical and psychological barriers to (dis)honesty

Cited by 36 publications

References 24 publications

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Cruel to be kind but not cruel for cash: Harm aversion in the dictator game

Morality and Self-Control: How They Are Intertwined and Where They Differ

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About