Collaborative dishonesty: A meta-analytic review.

Abstract

Although dishonesty is often a social phenomenon, it is primarily studied in individual settings. However, people frequently collaborate and engage in mutual dishonest acts. We report the first meta-analysis on collaborative dishonesty, analyzing 87,771 decisions (21 behavioral tasks; k = 123; n participants = 10,923). We provide an overview of all tasks used to measure collaborative dishonesty, and inform theory by conducting moderation analyses. Results reveal that collaborative dishonesty is higher (a) when financial incentives are high, (b) in lab than field studies, (c) when third parties experience no negative consequences, (d) in the absence of experimental deception, and (e) when groups consist of more males and (f) younger individuals. Further, in repeated interactions, group members' behavior is correlated-participants lie more when their partners lie-and lying increases as the task progresses. These findings are in line with the justified ethicality theoretical perspective, suggesting prosocial concerns increase collaborative dishonesty, whereas honest-image concerns attenuate it. We discuss how findings inform theory, setting an agenda for future research on the collaborative roots of dishonesty. Public Significance StatementWe present the first meta-analysis on collaborative dishonesty-when groups can lie to increase the group's profits-covering 87,771 decisions made by 10,923 people engaging in 21 different experimental tasks. Results reveal various situational and personal factors shape collaborative dishonesty, including, for example, that group members affect each other's behavior over time. We propose that prosocial and honest-image concerns drive collaborative dishonesty.

Registered report: The effects of incentivized lies on memory

“…This implies that participants were similarly inclined to lie to avoid punishment as they were to lie for prosocial reasons. This is somewhat in contrast with the meta-analysis of Leib et al (2021) showing that collaborative dishonesty tends to be higher when financial incentives are high. Moreover, previous research demonstrated that people are more willing to engage in deceptive behavior to avoid a loss than getting a reward (Schindler & Pfattheicher, 2017).…”

Meta-nudging honesty: Past, present, and future of the research frontier

“…Another line of research emphasizes the role of collective factors in driving dishonesty. These include settings in which one finds justification for one's own dishonesty in the dishonesty of peers [12,15,16]. The core insight here is that social reinforcement via observing and being observed by one's peers is interpreted as a signal of the dominant social norm, which can accelerate the contagion of dishonesty [1,8,44,45].…”

“…We can turn to meta-studies to better understand what robustly predicts dishonest behavior. A recent meta-analysis [16] on collaborative dishonesty analyzed 87,771 decisions across 21 behavioral tasks by 10,923 participants. Meta-analytical results revealed various factors that increase collaborative dishonesty, including higher financial incentives, conducting a lab experiment rather than a field experiment, and absence of negative externalities of one's lies on others.…”

“…Nonetheless, high-profile and systemic cases of dishonesty still persist (see, e.g., the recent Enron, Madoff, and Volkswagen scandals) [11]. Often, these instances are characterized by collaborative dishonesty in which the success of a dishonest act relies on successful coordination within groups [12][13][14][15][16].…”

“…This avenue has been particularly promising in the context of the replication movement [18]. Research on dishonesty can -and often already does -leverage these methodological insights [16,28,29].…”