Dishonest online: A distinction between observable and unobservable lying

Hermann, Daniel; Brenig, Mattheus

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2022.102489

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If that interpretation is right, then our online experiment, in which the corresponding task was a coin-flip task, may not have provided a significantly greater sense of security, and participants may have felt equally disinhibited from cheating in both experiments. Thus the general cheating that we found across all conditions would be in line with recent evidence that cheating tends to occur particularly when it is unobservable by the experimenters [37].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this preregistered study, we attempted to replicate and substantially extend a frequently cited experiment by Schurr and Ritov, published in 2016, suggesting that winners of pairwise competitions are more likely than others to steal money in subsequent games of chance against different opponents, possibly because of an enhanced sense of entitlement among competition winners. A replication seemed desirable because of the relevance of the effect to dishonesty in everyday life, the apparent counterintuitivity of the effect, possible problems and anomalies in the original study, and above all the fact that the researchers investigated only one potential explanation for the effect. Our results failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding: we found no evidence to support the hypotheses that either winning or losing is associated with subsequent cheating. A second online study also failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding. We used structural equation modelling to test four possible explanations for cheating—sense of entitlement, self-confidence, feeling lucky and inequality aversion. Only inequality aversion turned out to be significantly associated with cheating.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%