Revisiting REVISE: (Re)Testing unique and combined effects of REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior

Schild, Christoph; Heck, Daniel W.; Ścigała, Karolina Aleksandra; Zettler, Ingo

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2019.04.001

Cited by 45 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This procedure lets us estimate the proportions of participants who engaged in dishonest under- and over-reporting. Using this procedure is necessary because the dieroll outcomes obtained in the lying-trust game are anonymous and hence we cannot determine which participants actually rolled the numbers they reported and which participants did not (this kind of anonymity is necessary to give participants adequate conditions for cheating; [ 46 ]). In other words, the number of participants who indicated that they rolled a given number reflects both the number of participants who actually rolled the number and the number of participants who dishonestly misreported the number.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dishonesty as a signal of trustworthiness: Honesty-Humility and trustworthy dishonesty

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trustworthiness is a foundation of well-functioning relationships and societies, and thus often perceived as a socially normative behaviour. Correspondingly, a broad array of research found that people tend to act in a trustworthy way and signal their trustworthiness to others, and that trustworthiness is rewarded. Herein, we explore whether this motivation to behave trustworthily can have socially undesirable effects in terms of leading to dishonesty targeted at fulfilling the trustor's expectations (i.e. trustworthy dishonesty ). Furthermore, we examine how the basic trait of Honesty-Humility, which has consistently been found to be linked to both higher honesty and trustworthiness, relates to trustworthy dishonesty, where honesty and trustworthiness are at odds. Specifically, we conducted three pre-registered studies ( N = 7080), introducing a novel behavioural game, the lying-trust game , where participants had a chance to lie to act trustworthily. In two studies, we found that, when offered ‘full trust’, participants high in Honesty-Humility (i.e. the top 10%) engaged in trustworthy dishonesty, i.e. lied in order to avoid maximizing their own incentive at the cost of minimizing the incentive of their trustor. This pattern was not present when the trustor offered minimal trust only, as well as among participants low in Honesty-Humility (i.e. the bottom 10%).

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dishonesty as a signal of trustworthiness: Honesty-Humility and trustworthy dishonesty

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gino and Ariely (2012), for instance, found that creativity was positively related to dishonesty in a cheating task in which participants could obtain a profit through dishonest misinterpretation of ambiguous stimuli, which in itself might have required creativity to perform a dishonest action (or which might have been based on an unintentional misinterpretation of the stimuli). Consequently, in our study, we link creativity to variants of (1) the mind game (Jiang, 2013;Schild et al, 2019a) and-exploratory-(2) the sender-receiver game (Gneezy, 2005), both of which are behavioral tasks assessing dishonesty in a straightforward way. Note that linking different creativity measures to behavioral tasks mirrors investigating so-called prediction consistency, i.e.…”

Section: Linking Different Creativity Measures To a Straightforward Cheating Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…self-report) and two objective (i.e. performance-based; Park et al, 2016) creativity measures to (1) a straightforward behavioral cheating task as a clear measure of dishonesty, namely, a previously used variant of the mind game (Jiang, 2013;Schild et al, 2019a) and (2) the basic personality trait dimension of Honesty-Humility, a selfreport measure of one's tendency to behave, among other things, in a dishonest way (Zettler et al, 2020). By following recent recommendations to use a multimethod creativity assessment (Ambrose & Machek, 2015;Park et al, 2016;Plucker & Makel, 2010), this approach sheds light on the question which kind of (measured) creativity-if any-is related to dishonesty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dark, gray, or bright creativity? (Re)investigating the link between creativity and dishonesty

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether and, if so, how creativity and unethical behavior such as dishonesty are related to each other has been addressed in multiple studies, with mixed results overall. The aim of this Registered Report is to shed further light on this issue. We first present a meta-analysis on the relation between creativity and dishonesty comprising the samples from a pre-registered multi-lab study (on a different topic), which indicated no relation between the constructs in question ( k = 19, N = 2,154, rp = .02). Next, we examined the relation between creativity and dishonesty in a study ( N = 1,152), in which we addressed several limitations of previous research. Specifically, we examined relations between comprehensively assessed creativity and dishonesty using subjective and objective indicators for both constructs. We found mixed results concerning the relation between creativity and dishonesty. In the majority of the confirmatory statistical tests, subjective creativity was positively related, whereas objective creativity was negatively related to dishonesty in the mind game. However, in exploratory analyses, we found that neither subjective nor objective creativity was related to dishonesty in the second dishonesty measure, the sender–receiver game.

show abstract

“…Overall, we present four studies investigating how approval rates are related to cheating behavior in three different cheating paradigms. In detail, Study 1 and Study 4 used an adapted version of the Mind Game (Schild, Heck, Ścigała, & Zettler, 2019), Study 2 used a standard version of the coin‐flip paradigm (e.g., Hilbig & Zettler, 2015), and Study 3 used a computerized coin flip paradigm (e.g., Balasubramanian, Bennett, & Pierce, 2017). Further, across the studies we test for a broad range of approval rates (even beyond commonly used thresholds) as well as for the robustness of our findings by controlling for age and gender of the participants, as these were suggested as predictors of dishonesty in cheating paradigms in the recent meta‐analysis by Gerlach et al (2019).…”

Section: The Present Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After consenting to participate in the study, participants provided demographic information. Next, participants participated in an adapted version of the Mind Game paradigm (Schild et al, 2019). Specifically, participants were asked to write down a target number between 1 and 8 in private.…”

Section: Concerningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior in cheating paradigms is linked to overall approval rates of crowdworkers

Schild

Lilleholt

Zettler

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dishonest and fraudulent behavior poses a serious threat to both individuals and societies. Many studies investigating dishonesty rely on (one of) a few well‐established lab and online cheating paradigms. Quite surprisingly, though, the external validity of these paradigms has only been investigated in a small number of studies, raising the question of whether behavior in these paradigms is related to real‐life dishonesty or, more broadly, socially questionable behavior. Tackling this gap, we link observed behavior in two widely used cheating paradigms to approval rates on two crowdworking platforms (namely, Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk) using data from four studies (overall N = 5,183). Results indicate that lower approval rates are associated with higher proportions of dishonest individuals. Importantly, this relation also holds for crowdworkers who exceed commonly used thresholds for study inclusion. The results thus support the external validity of (two widely used) cheating paradigms. Further, the study identifies approval rates as a variable that explains dishonesty on crowdworking platforms.

show abstract

Revisiting REVISE: (Re)Testing unique and combined effects of REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior

Cited by 45 publications

References 37 publications

Dishonesty as a signal of trustworthiness: Honesty-Humility and trustworthy dishonesty

Dishonesty as a signal of trustworthiness: Honesty-Humility and trustworthy dishonesty

Dark, gray, or bright creativity? (Re)investigating the link between creativity and dishonesty

Behavior in cheating paradigms is linked to overall approval rates of crowdworkers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About