Do we lie in groups? An experimental evidence

Korbel, Vaclav

doi:10.1080/13504851.2016.1259734

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weisel and Shalvi (2015) was among the first to show that participants collaborating in a dyadic die rolling game, cheated more than individuals playing the game alone. Similar results have been observed in different decision contexts; for instance, dishonesty increases (1) when participants make decisions individually but report simultaneously (e.g., Kocher et al, 2018), (2) when the group makes one joint decision (e.g., Beck et al, 2020;Korbel et al, 2017) or (3) when each group member makes a decision and reports one after each other (e.g., Wouda et al, 2017;Gross et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Communication Increases Collaborative Corruption

Tønnesen,

Elbaek,

Pfattheicher

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale corporate fraud often evolves from the intricate, coordinated actions of several individuals. Despite being a pivotal aspect of human cooperation, only few studies within the field of collaborative dishonesty have included communication between participants, and no studies have yet experimentally compared this to non-communicative contexts. As a result, the impact of communication on unethical collaborations remains unclear. To address this gap, we conducted two well-powered studies (Ntotal = 1,187), closely replicating and extending seminal research by Weisel and Shalvi (2015), introducing communication as a manipulated variable within a dyadic cheating task. Across both studies, we found compelling evidence that communication increases the magnitude of cheating – even when coordination on the task is not allowed. Importantly, the effect of communication was linked to a stronger experienced collaboration among the communicating dyads, highlighting that communication is not only key to everyday ethically sound collaborations, but also to corrupt collaborations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Communication Increases Collaborative Corruption

Tønnesen,

Elbaek,

Pfattheicher

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, collaboration can be a fertile ground for dishonesty (Karg et al, 2020; Lohse & Simon, 2019; Pulfrey et al, 2018). Indeed, people lie more when collaborating than when working alone (Conrads et al, 2013; Korbel, 2017; Weisel & Shalvi, 2015), and in collaborative settings, dishonesty is contagious, spreading among group members (Gross et al, 2018). As such, examining collaborative dishonesty meta-analytically is important both theoretically and practically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative dishonesty: A meta-analytic review.

Leib¹,

Köbis²,

Soraperra³

et al. 2021

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Bucciol and Piovesan (2011) find that children (aged 5-15) lie when they have the opportunity to do so, but tend to be honest when someone reminds them that lying is not good: cheating is however uniform across age. Instead, Korbel (2017) finds that cheating increases with age. Interestingly, this latter paper also manipulates the group dimension and allows the cheating decision to be taken alone or in group, and finds that groups cheat more in both age groups (11-13 and 14-16).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 94%