Dishonesty in the Name of Equity

Abstract

Under what conditions do people act dishonestly to help or hurt others? We addressed this question by examining the influence of a previously overlooked factor-the beneficiary or victim of dishonest acts. In two experiments, we randomly paired participants and manipulated their wealth levels through an initial lottery. We then observed how inequity between partners influenced the likelihood of one dishonestly helping or hurting the other, while varying the financial incentives for dishonest behavior. The results show that financial self-interest cannot fully explain people's tendency to dishonestly help or hurt others. Rather, such dishonesty is influenced by emotional reactions to wealth-based inequity, even when the dishonesty bears a personal financial cost. Envy evoked by negative inequity led to hurting behavior, whereas guilt induced by positive inequity motivated helping behavior. Finally, inequity between the partner and third parties triggered dishonest helping through empathy with the partner.

Effects of deception in social networks

“…Recall that our definition of prosocial lies ('white lies' or fibs) is that they benefit the recipient at a modest cost to the actor, thereby preserving the dyadic relationship between them-in a context where an antisocial lie would threaten the stability of the relationship. Lies of this kind seem to occur commonly in human interactions: there is experimental evidence, for example, to suggest that people may lie or cheat to ensure greater equity of outcomes in economic games [56]. This may be important for maintaining the relationship equilibrium in networks because a highly inequitable distribution of pay-offs can be very disruptive (especially in traditional small-scale societies [57]).…”

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

“…Yet, when the benefits of lying do not clearly outweigh those of honesty in the eyes of the target, prosocial lies can harm trust and moral judgments, and communicating benevolent intent may do little to mitigate these negative effects (Lupoli, Levine, & Greenberg, 2017). Other work has focused on predictors of prosocial lying: Research reveals that people are more likely to lie when others stand to gain (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2013;Gino & Pierce, 2009;Wiltermuth, 2011), and prosocial lying is observed even when there is a cost to the self (Erat & Gneezy, 2012). Thus far, however, no work has examined what is likely a critical antecedent of prosocial lying: emotion, and in particular, the emotion of compassion.…”

Agreement and similarity in self-other perceptions of moral character

“…Cohen, Gunia, Kim-Jun, & Murnighan, 2009;Gino & Pierce, 2009;Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011;Kern & Chugh, 2009;Schweitzer, Ordóñez, & Douma, 2004;Wiltermuth, 2011;Zhong, Bohns, & Gino, 2010). This does not mean, however, that we should relegate the study of moral personality characteristics to the back-burner, nor does it mean that situations have a stronger impact on behavior than does personality (Fleeson, 2001;Fleeson & Noftle, 2008).…”