People avoid situations that enable them to deceive others

Shalvi, Shaul; Handgraaf, Michel J. J.; Dreu, Carsten K. W. De

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.015

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, maintaining a positive self-image requires being able to justify to oneself one's unethical behavior. Indeed, the extent to which people can justify their actions is an important determinant of unethical behavior (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). In line with these findings, the feeling of entitlement may facilitate self-justification for overclaiming resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Psychological theories explaining unethical behaviors typically focus on feelings and rationalizations as motivating factors of these behaviors. For example, people often behave dishonestly, but only to the extent that they can do so without violating their perception of themselves as honest (13,14), or to the extent that they can justify their actions (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). In this context, a sense of entitlement may mediate the relationship between selfconcept and dishonesty because it provides the necessary justification for moral disengagement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior

Schurr

Ritov

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Winning a competition engenders subsequent unrelated unethical behavior. Five studies reveal that after a competition has taken place winners behave more dishonestly than competition losers. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that winning a competition increases the likelihood of winners to steal money from their counterparts in a subsequent unrelated task. Studies 3a and 3b demonstrate that the effect holds only when winning means performing better than others (i.e., determined in reference to others) but not when success is determined by chance or in reference to a personal goal. Finally, study 4 demonstrates that a possible mechanism underlying the effect is an enhanced sense of entitlement among competition winners.ife, both personal and professional, is beset with challenges and rivalries. Success is often determined by one's ability to outstrip the competition. Although competition motivates individuals to work harder to obtain better outcomes it may also lead to deleterious effects, such as increasing dishonesty in pursuit of competitive advantage and decreasing prosocial behavior. Indeed, the literature offers important insights regarding the propensity of contestants to behave in prosocial or asocial manners before and during competitions (1, 2). We know only little about contestants' behavior after the competition has ended. The current research aims at filling this gap. In particular, we ask: Who is more likely to subsequently engage in unrelated unethical behaviors-winners or losers?Competition outcomes are by definition relative. The results are determined by the ranking of the competitor relative to other contestants. Because performance outcome is determined relative to others, competition evinces social comparisons (3, 4). Enhanced social comparison can in turn result in two contrasting effects. On one hand, because losers have access to fewer resources than winners, they may be more motivated to use asocial behaviors to enhance their resources. Indeed, several laboratory studies show that losing tends to provoke subsequent dishonest behavior (5-7), suggesting increased motivation to behave unethically when in a position of disadvantage (8). On the other hand, one may expect that the increased prominence of social comparison in competition will evince a sense of entitlement among winners (9, 10). The sense of entitlement, in turn, facilitates dishonest behavior among winners (6, 11). This reasoning points to the opposite prediction, namely that winners are more inclined to behave dishonestly than losers.Psychological entitlement is the feeling that one is more deserving of preferential treatment than other people are (12). Some findings suggest that entitlement is also a psychological state; for example, people's sense of entitlement increases when being wronged (5, 6). Psychological theories explaining unethical behaviors typically focus on feelings and rationalizations as motivating factors of these behaviors. For example, people often behave dishonestly, but only to the extent that they can do so wit...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior

Schurr

Ritov

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accumulated evidence shows that lying for personal gain is psychologically costly [Lundquist et al, ]. Introducing honesty concerns in decision‐making (i.e., the concerns of increasing one's own benefits through lying) decreases the tendency toward materially self‐serving advantageous choices [Gneezy, ] as well as the tendency to avoid such situations [Shalvi et al, ]. Even in a context where lying is not punished or causes no (direct) harm to others, many individuals behave honestly and forfeit dishonest gains [Erat and Gneezy, ; López‐Pérez and Spiegelman, ; Yin et al, ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The good lies: Altruistic goals modulate processing of deception in the anterior insula

Liu

Dynowski

et al. 2017

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When it comes to lies, the beneficiaries of one's dishonesty play an important role in the decision-making process. Altruistic lies that are made with the intention of benefiting others are a specific type of lies and very common in real life. While it has been shown that altruistic goals influence (dis)honest behaviors, the neural substrates of this effect is still unknown. To reveal how the brain integrates altruistic goals into (dis)honest decisions, this study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine the neural activity of participants in a real incentivized context while they were making (dis)honest decisions. We manipulated the beneficiaries of individuals' decisions (self vs. a charity) and whether the choices of higher payoffs involved deception or not. While finding that participants lied more often to benefit charities than for themselves, we observed that the altruistic goal of benefiting a charity, compared with the self-serving goal, reduced the activity in the anterior insula (AI) when lying to achieve higher payoffs. Furthermore, the degree of altruistic goal-induced reduction of AI activity was positively correlated with the degree of altruistic goal-induced reduction of honesty concerns. These results suggest that the AI serves as a neural hub in modulating the effect of altruistic goals on deception, which shed light on the underlying neural mechanism of altruistic lies. Hum Brain Mapp, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…This tendency was due to people's tendency to restrict the amount of their lies (Gneezy, 2005;Lundquist, Ellingson, & Johannesson, 2009;see also Atanasov & Dana, 2011;Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011;Schweitzer & Hsee, 2002) and balance any unethical acts in which they may be involved with their desire to maintain an honest self-concept (Fischbacher & Heusi, 2008;Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008;Shalvi, Handgraaf, & De Dreu, 2011b), which leads them to lie only to the extent that self-justifications were made available (Shalvi, Dana, Handgraaf, & De Dreu, 2011, see also Ayal & Gino, 2011Lewis, et al, in press;Gino & Ariely, in press). In this context, recent work found that manipulating people's regulatory focus influences their likelihood of lying (Gino & Margolis, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation

Shalvi¹,

Reijseger

Handgraaf

et al. 2013

Journal of Economic Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pay to walk away: prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation Shalvi, S.; Reijseger, G.; Handgraaf, M.J.J.; Appelt, K.C.; ten Velden, F.S.; Giacomantonio, M.; de Dreu, C.K.W. General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. In bargaining, buyers aim to spend as little money as they can on the items they seek to purchase. Compared to promotion-oriented people, prevention-oriented people seek to avoid losses rather than to secure gains. Employing different negotiation scenarios, three lab experiments tested the prediction that prevention-oriented buyers would thus display higher negotiation aversion than promotion-oriented buyers. Results showed that prevention-oriented people in the role of a potential buyer were willing to accept lower monetary compensation to refrain from entering the negotiation and were more likely to exit the negotiation when such an opportunity was presented to them. We discuss these findings and their contribution to our understanding of how regulatory focus influences consumers' economic decisions.

show abstract

People avoid situations that enable them to deceive others

Cited by 34 publications

References 75 publications

Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior

Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior

The good lies: Altruistic goals modulate processing of deception in the anterior insula

Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About