The (honest) truth about rational dishonesty

Yaniv, Gideon; Siniver, Erez

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2016.01.002

Cited by 26 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Obviously, we are not interested in moving people in this direction, but a sound understanding of what prevents people from engaging in full‐scale cheating is important to know as is determining whether it is perhaps a strategy to appear honest and feeling safe to cheat. The latter has recently been argued to be a focal driver of why people do not cheat full‐scale by Yaniv and Siniver (). A fruitful way to pursue this research agenda would be to seek integration across related research fields.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…() actively seek to test whether people, in fact, update their moral self‐image after transgressing. On the contrary, recent papers have criticized moderate cheating on the basis of the self‐concept theory and the empirical findings supporting it saying that it is a matter of actually feeling ‘safe to cheat’ and strategically not cheating to the maximum extent possible (Yaniv and Siniver, ). Instead, people prefer to only appear honest.…”

Section: Summing Up: Does the Evidence Support The Theory?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Jacobsen

Fosgaard

Pascual‐Ezama

2017

Journal of Economic Surveys

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, a massive body of research has been devoted to uncovering human dishonesty. In the present paper, we review more than a hundred papers from this literature and provide a comprehensive overview by first listing the existing theoretical frameworks, and then covering the common empirical approaches, synthesizing the demographic and personal characteristics of those who cheat, identifying the behavioural mechanisms found that affect dishonesty and finally we finish by discussing how the empirical evidence fit theory. Overall, the review concludes that many people behave dishonestly, but also that it is a highly malleable behavior sensitive to elements such as decision contexts, behaviour of others, state of mind and depletion. The review can be used as an overview of the dishonesty literature or as a guide or work of reference for selected topics of interest.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Summing Up: Does the Evidence Support The Theory?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Jacobsen

Fosgaard

Pascual‐Ezama

2017

Journal of Economic Surveys

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No penalties for academic integrity violations also factors into its occurrence. Dishonesty is sometimes factored on cost benefits, and when the benefits of cheating and plagiarism outweigh the punishment, academic dishonesty increases (Yaniv & Siniver, 2016). Research results on academic dishonesty reveal some learning institutions are having difficulty dealing with the issue of cheating and plagiarism, and so they ignore the problem rather than address it (Brimble, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Online Business School Instructors Address Academic Integrity Violations

Nelson¹

2021

JEO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While online learning has dramatically increased over the past few years, so have opportunities for students to cheat, plagiarize, or commit other academic integrity violations in the online learning environment. Some online instructors effectively address these issues, while others do not. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how online business school instructors address academic integrity violations. To examine in what manner academic integrity issues were being addressed in the online classroom, 12 teachers at a university located in Florida were interviewed to obtain their perspectives and instructional practices regarding academic integrity online. Results indicate all participants believe it is their job to prevent academic integrity violations; however, only two instructors have reported it through school administrators, with many participants deciding to address the issue in their own classroom and not report it outside to school leadership for help addressing the issue. The importance of this study shows that most online instructors are doing what they believe is their best to address integrity violations; however, they may be promoting it by not reporting it outside of the classroom to school administration.

show abstract

“…To observe cheating at the individual level, experimenters can recover the answer sheets from the recycle bin and compare the actual to the reported performance (Cai, Huang, Wu, & Kou, 2015;Gino & Ariely, 2012;Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011). Nevertheless, participants might be aware of the verifiability of their lies in the recycle bin condition, which could reduce the frequency of cheating compared to the take-home condition (Yaniv & Siniver, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taken together, when there is no possibility of getting caught, cheating level can only be inferred from statistical distribution (Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi, 2013;Gneezy et al, 2013;Moshagen & Hilbig, 2016). On the other hand, when cheating behavior is observable, such as in the ability test, participants tend to behave honestly in order to not get caught (Yaniv & Siniver, 2016). This conflict between safety to cheat and verifiability of cheating can be resolved in the unsolvable paradigm (Chou, 2015;Evans & Lee, 2011;Karabenick & Srull, 1978;Niiya, Ballantyne, North, & Crocker, 2008;Talwar, Gordon, & Lee, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Difference Spotting Task: A new nonverbal measure of cheating behavior

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand when, how, and why people cheat, the ability to detect cheating in a laboratory setting is crucial. However, commonly used paradigms are confronted with a conflict between allowing participants to believe they can cheat unnoticed and allowing experimenters to detect cheating. This project aimed to develop and establish a new nonverbal task to resolve this conflict. Study 1 and Study 2 developed a new unsolvable paradigm called the Difference Spotting Task. In Study 1, participants were incentivized to indicate whether they found any difference between a pair of pictures without being asked to point the difference(s) out, so they could overreport their performance to earn extra money. Unbeknownst to them, the pairs of pictures from half of the items were identical so that the task could not be solved without cheating. This paradigm allowed experimenters to detect cheating for each unsolvable item. Study 3 examined the validity of the Difference Spotting Task and demonstrated it as a valid tool to assess cheating. The Difference Spotting Task is nonverbal and thus applicable to populations across age, educational level, and culture. In this unsolvable task, participants feel safe in cheating, and experimenters can detect cheating at the item level. The task holds the potential to gain acceptance by many researchers and facilitate the investigation of the underlying processes of cheating behavior.

show abstract

The (honest) truth about rational dishonesty

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide to the Dishonesty Literature

How Online Business School Instructors Address Academic Integrity Violations

The Difference Spotting Task: A new nonverbal measure of cheating behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About