Stage 1 Registered Report: How subtle linguistic cues prevent unethical behaviors

Abstract

Different ways of description can easily influence people’s evaluations and behaviors. A previous study by Bryan and colleagues suggested that subtle linguistic differences in ethical reminders can differentially prevent readers’ unethical behavior. The present study aims to replicate the previous finding in the Japanese context, additionally exploring the influence of unfamiliar instruction words that capture participants’ attention. In two experiments, which are planned to be conducted online, participants are asked to make 10 coin-tosses and report the number of “heads” results, indicating the amount of money that they can earn. We will manipulate instructions (“Don’t cheat” vs. “Don’t be a cheater” vs. baseline as a control) for each participant group, including nearly 270 participants (Experiment 1). Next, we will conduct an extended experiment with an additional task in which more attention is directed toward the text (Experiment 2). Through these registered experiments, we examine the credibility of the previous finding that type of instruction affects the occurrence of unethical behaviors.

Warning ‘Don't spread’ versus ‘Don't be a spreader’ to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic

“…It was probably because our study had several limitations. One of its limitations was that it had a longer time period until data collection than previous studies [ 4 , 9 ]. In particular, in an original study [ 5 ], which had shown that people with an emphasis on self-identity were more likely to engage in voting behaviour, experimental manipulation of reminders had been conducted on the day before or the day of the voting, whereas in our study, the participants were required to perform the second wave a week after the experimental manipulation of a reminder.…”

“…Guo et al . [ 9 ] calculated the effect size of the original study [ 1 ] for a value of Cohen's f = 0.302. However, the small sample size might overestimate the effect size.…”

“…However, the small sample size might overestimate the effect size. Therefore, as a replication convention [ 9 , 10 ], we halved the effect size of the original experiment (Cohen's f = 0.151), and used G * Power [ 11 ] to conduct a power analysis (Cohen's f = 0.151, α = 0.05, 1− β = 0.99, number of groups = 3), as a result of which we set N = 942 as the required sample size. Moreover, considering that many participants are often excluded in online surveys because of satisficing [ 12 – 14 ], and the dropout rate from the second wave, we have set almost double the required sample size ( N = 1890) as the maximum sample size.…”

Stage 2 Registered Report: How subtle linguistic cues prevent unethical behaviors

“…Crowdsourcing. The protocol of this experiment was registered on the Open Science Framework ( Guo et al, 2020 ). The results showed that the familiarity rating score in the “cheater” condition was significantly lower than that in the “cheating” condition, t (64) = 6.73, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.834.…”

“…Open Science Framework: How subtle linguistic cues prevent unethical behaviors, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AXDHV ( Guo et al, 2020 ).…”