IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v16y2021i6p1525-1548_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty

Author

Listed:
  • Peleg, Dar
  • Hochman, Guy
  • Levine, Timothy
  • Klar, Yechiel
  • Ayal, Shahar

Abstract

In two studies, we tested the power of revenge as a justification mechanism that enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated with it. To this end, we employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase, participants played one round of a bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study 1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in which we manipulated whether the players had been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the second phase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gain at the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participants also took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the second phase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated that the opponent’s dishonesty was a stronger driver than the opponent’s unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, the physiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (and not just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating the offender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.

Suggested Citation

  • Peleg, Dar & Hochman, Guy & Levine, Timothy & Klar, Yechiel & Ayal, Shahar, 2021. "Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(6), pages 1525-1548, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1525-1548_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008536/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1525-1548_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.