2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.06.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of communication channels on dishonest behavior

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
27
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although F&FH, and also Mazar et al, found no e¤ect of anonymity on cheating, other studies found sizeable e¤ects. For instance, Conrads & Lotz (2015) used a multiple-period design where subjects would ‡ip a coin four times, report the outcomes, and get paid based on the number of reported of "tails." Although partial lying became more prevalent as the channel of communication became less anonymous, dishonesty with respect to extreme and pro…t-maximizing outcomes became more prevalent with increased anonymity.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although F&FH, and also Mazar et al, found no e¤ect of anonymity on cheating, other studies found sizeable e¤ects. For instance, Conrads & Lotz (2015) used a multiple-period design where subjects would ‡ip a coin four times, report the outcomes, and get paid based on the number of reported of "tails." Although partial lying became more prevalent as the channel of communication became less anonymous, dishonesty with respect to extreme and pro…t-maximizing outcomes became more prevalent with increased anonymity.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 At the same time, they observe little variation in the subsequent rates of promise-keeping. 4 Recent studies that investigate the relationship between the mode of communication and lying behavior (see, for example, Abeler et al, 2014;Conrads and Lotz, 2015;Cohn et al, 2018) do better in controlling the content of the communication across different channels. In these studies, subjects simply need to report the outcomes of coin tosses in all the communication channels (voice, text, online-form, or face-to-face).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, a large body of experimental evidence suggests that even in the absence of reputation incentives individuals often behave in an honest, fair, and altruistic way towards other humans, but not necessarily towards organizations or machines (see, for example, Haran (2013), De Melo, Marsella, and Gratch (2016), and Cohn, Gesche, and Marechal (2018)). Prosocial behavior towards other humans has been found to decrease with social distance and to increase with the observability of individuals' behavior (e.g, Hoffman, McCabe, and Smith (1996), Conrads andLotz (2015), Della Vigna, List, andMalmendier (2015)). It might reflect an intrinsic desire for fairness and promise keeping as well as concerns about social image and hence aversion to guilt or shame (e.g., Charness and Dufwenberg (2006) and Vanberg (2008)).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%