Ethical Free Riding: When Honest People Find Dishonest Partners

Abstract

Corruption is often the product of coordinated rule violations. Here, we investigated how such corrupt collaboration emerges and spreads when people can choose their partners versus when they cannot. Participants were assigned a partner and could increase their payoff by coordinated lying. After several interactions, they were either free to choose whether to stay with or switch their partner or forced to stay with or switch their partner. Results reveal that both dishonest and honest people exploit the freedom to choose a partner. Dishonest people seek a partner who will also lie—a “partner in crime.” Honest people, by contrast, engage in ethical free riding: They refrain from lying but also from leaving dishonest partners, taking advantage of their partners’ lies. We conclude that to curb collaborative corruption, relying on people’s honesty is insufficient. Encouraging honest individuals not to engage in ethical free riding is essential.

Buying Unethical Loyalty: A Behavioral Paradigm and Empirical Test

“…This is striking because Honesty-Humility also bears consistent positive relations with prosocial behavior (Thielmann et al, in press;Zhao & Smillie, 2015). As such, our data also confirm prior evidence in showing that dishonest individuals may profit from alliances with other dishonest individuals who will be willing to cover up their transgressions (Gross et al, 2018).…”

The Look Over Your Shoulder: Unethical Behaviour Decreases in the Physical Presence of Observers

“…The present research emphasizes the importance of the social aspect in behavioural social science research, illuminating when the physical presence of another person doesor does notreduce unethical behaviour. Experiments on corruption and cheating have largely limited their attention to decisions made in isolation (Serra & Wantchekon, 2012), while at the same time the roles of other people as role-models or "partners in crime" have become UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER PERSON increasingly recognized as powerful triggers of unethical behaviour (Gächter & Schulz, 2016;Gross et al, 2018;Weisel & Shalvi, 2015). As among the first experiments in the field, the present studies investigate unethical behaviour in the actual presence of others.…”

“…This promising trend allows for some speculative thoughts on ways in which unethical behavior in society can be reduced. One particularly effective tool may be to think in terms of rotating individuals operating in dyads rather than alone (Poerting & Vahlenkamp, 1998, however see also, Gross, Leib, Offerman, & Shalvi, 2018;). For example, those responsible for cash flow in organizations may work in dyads rather than alone.…”

The psychology of partner choice

“…Perhaps the most representative paradigm is when a participant chooses between two (or more) potential partners for an economic interaction, whether that be a trust game (see Table 1 for a description of this and other economic games referenced here) (Bornhorst, Ichino, Kirchkamp, Schlag, & Winter, 2010;Bostyn & Roets, 2017;Everett et al, 2016;Fehrler & Przepiorka, 2016;Pleasant & Barclay, 2018), a prisoner's dilemma (Aksoy, 2015), or a dictator game (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006;. Closely related are contexts in which participants interact with a partner and decide whether they would like to play an economic game with that partner again or with a different partner, either in a subsequent dyadic context (Barclay & Willer, 2007;Coricelli, Fehr, & Fellner, 2004;Eisenbruch & Roney, 2017;Gross, Leib, Offerman, & Shalvi, 2018;Martin & Cushman, 2015;Sylwester & Roberts, 2010 or a group context (Liddell & Kruschke, 2014;Page, Putterman, & Unel, 2005;Rockenbach & Milinski, 2011). We note that these group exclusion decisions have been previously studied under the heading of ostracism.…”

“…In the context of choosing a partner, this abnormal underlying disposition may mean that this agent is likely to behave in counter-normative ways and is thus someone to avoid as a partner. However, preferences for moral decision making can take a back seat to other considerations -when presented with a task in which a dishonest partner leads to a better chance of higher payoffs for the dyad, individuals will switch away from honest partners and toward dishonest partners (Gross et al, 2018).…”