Abstract:Psychologists, economists, and philosophers have long argued that in environments where deception is normative, moral behavior is harmed. In this article, we show that individuals making decisions within minimally deceptive environments do not behave more dishonestly than in nondeceptive environments. We demonstrate the latter using an example of experimental deception within established institutions, such as laboratories and institutional review boards. We experimentally manipulated whether participants recei… Show more
“…When working in collaborative settings, dishonesty can be contagious and spread among group members (Gross et al, 2018) and the impact of collaboration on corrupt behaviors has been related to various factors, including diffusion of responsibility and moral justifications (Conrads et al, 2013;Kocher et al, 2018), perceived similarity (Irlenbusch et al, 2020), commitment (Zickfeld et al, 2022), parochial altruism (Cadsby et al, 2016;Shalvi & De Dreu, 2014), exposure to dishonest descriptive norms (Gross & De Dreu,, 2020;Soraperra et al, 2017) and conformity (Jamaluddin et al, 2020). Conversely, committing to an honesty oath (Beck et al, 2020;Zickfeld et al, 2023), increasing the salience of negative externalities (Castillo et al, 2022), and being monitored (Mitkidis et al, 2023;Schild et al, 2019) have been found to decrease dishonesty.…”
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.
“…When working in collaborative settings, dishonesty can be contagious and spread among group members (Gross et al, 2018) and the impact of collaboration on corrupt behaviors has been related to various factors, including diffusion of responsibility and moral justifications (Conrads et al, 2013;Kocher et al, 2018), perceived similarity (Irlenbusch et al, 2020), commitment (Zickfeld et al, 2022), parochial altruism (Cadsby et al, 2016;Shalvi & De Dreu, 2014), exposure to dishonest descriptive norms (Gross & De Dreu,, 2020;Soraperra et al, 2017) and conformity (Jamaluddin et al, 2020). Conversely, committing to an honesty oath (Beck et al, 2020;Zickfeld et al, 2023), increasing the salience of negative externalities (Castillo et al, 2022), and being monitored (Mitkidis et al, 2023;Schild et al, 2019) have been found to decrease dishonesty.…”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.