Honesty in tournaments

Conrads, Julian; Irlenbusch, Bernd; Rilke, Rainer Michael; Schielke, Anne; Walkowitz, Gari

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.01.026

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reporting higher numbers increases individual benefits, but has no effect on others. First, we confirm predominant gender differences in compliance behavior, that is women are more honest than men (e.g., Friesen and Gangadharan 2012;Conrads et al 2014). One could argue that our results may not adequately replicate existing results in honesty behavior as our stakes were low.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Grosch

Rau

2017

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may University of Mannheim, University of Göttingen March 2017Abstract This paper experimentally analyzes the determinants of the honesty norm in a lying game. The findings confirm common gender differences, i.e., men cheat significantly more than women. We detect a novel correlation between subjects' magnitude of concern they have for others (social value orientation) and their moral valuation of the norm honesty. The data suggest that individualistic subjects are less honest than prosocial ones. Interestingly, this difference can explain the gender differences we observe. First, we find that the distribution of social value orientation differs between gender, i.e., significantly more male subjects are characterized as individualistic subjects. Second, once we control for social value orientation the gender differential disappears. JEL Classification numbers: C91, H26, J16.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…1 This is shown in the lab (e.g., Erat and Gneezy, 2012;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2014;Kocher et al, 2016) 2 and in the field (Azar et al, 2013;Bucciol et al, 2013). Although, the literature predominately finds that men cheat significantly more, some studies find no gender differences (e.g., Childs, 2012;Djawadi and Fahr, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Grosch

Rau

2017

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our work also contributes to the growing experimental literature on the determinants of dishonest and unethical conduct (Gneezy, 2005;Mazar, et al, 2008;Gino, et al, 2009;Fischbacher and Föllmi--Heusi, 2013;Gibson, et al, 2013;Conrads et al, 2013Conrads et al, , 2014. In line with these studies, we address the concern that unethical conduct is hard to observe through the use of a behavioral task in which subjects have the opportunity to act unethically-i.e., to tell a lie for profit in a manner that will never be detected-but where our ability to create numerous identical replications of the same situation makes inference regarding the presence of unethical conduct possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Do Leaders Affect Ethical Conduct?

d’Adda

Darai

Pavanini

et al. 2017

Journal of the European Economic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We study whether leaders influence the unethical conduct of followers. To avoid selection issues present in natural environments, we use a laboratory experiment in which we form groups and assign leadership roles at random. We study an environment in which groups compete, with dishonest behavior enhancing group earnings to the detriment of social welfare. We vary, by treatment, two instruments through which leaders can influence follower conduct-prominent statements to the group and the allocation of monetary incentives. In general, the presence of active group leaders gives rise to significantly more dishonest behavior. Moreover, appointing leaders who are likely to have acted dishonestly in a preliminary stage of the experiment yields groups with significantly more unethical conduct. The analysis of leaders' strategies reveals that leaders' statements have a stronger effect on follower behavior than the ability to distribute financial rewards, and that leaders' propensity to act dishonestly correlates with their use of statements or incentives as a means for encouraging dishonest follower conduct.

show abstract

“…1 So far, the literature on lying behavior has mainly analyzed decisions by individuals; possibly in strategic interaction with other individuals as in tournaments (see e.g., Conrads et al, 2014). However, in many settings, a group of individuals must reach a decision jointly, e.g., decision-making by committees in economic, social, or political organizations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2008; Childs, 2012;Erat and Gneezy, 2012;Houser et al, 2012;Conrads et al, 2013Conrads et al, , 2014Abeler et al, 2014). 1 So far, the literature on lying behavior has mainly analyzed decisions by individuals; possibly in strategic interaction with other individuals as in tournaments (see e.g., Conrads et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• We analyze gender effects in the lying behavior of groups and individuals.• We extend the die-rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013).• There are no pronounced gender effects under individual decision-making.• Strong gender effects emerge under joint decision-making in groups.• There is more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tExtending the die rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013), we compare gender effects with respect to unethical behavior by individuals and by two-person groups. In contrast to individual decisions, gender matters strongly under group decisions. We find more lying in male groups and mixed groups than in female groups.

show abstract

Honesty in tournaments

Cited by 76 publications

References 18 publications

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation

Do Leaders Affect Ethical Conduct?

Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About