IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v113y2010i2p85-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information

Author

Listed:
  • Steinel, Wolfgang
  • Utz, Sonja
  • Koning, Lukas

Abstract

Research on information sharing in group decision-making has widely assumed a cooperative context and focused on the exchange of shared or unshared information in the hidden profile paradigm ([Stasser and Titus, 1985] and [Stasser and Titus, 1987]), neglecting the role of information importance. We argue that information sharing is a mixed-motive conflict setting that gives rise to motivated strategic behavior. We introduce a research paradigm that combines aspects of the traditional information sampling paradigm with aspects of a public good dilemma: the information pooling game. In three experiments, we show that information sharing is strategic behavior that depends on people's pro-social or pro-self motivation, and that people consider information sharedness and information importance when deciding whether to reveal, withhold, or falsify their private or public information. Pro-social individuals were consistently found to honestly reveal their private and important information, while selfish individuals strategically concealed or even lied about their private and important information.

Suggested Citation

  • Steinel, Wolfgang & Utz, Sonja & Koning, Lukas, 2010. "The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 85-96, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:113:y:2010:i:2:p:85-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(10)00055-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Xiao-Ping & Au, Wing Tung & Komorita, S. S., 1996. "Sequential Choice in a Step-Level Public Goods Dilemma: The Effects of Criticality and Uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 37-47, January.
    2. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    3. Koning, Lukas & Dijk, Eric van & Beest, Ilja van & Steinel, Wolfgang, 2010. "An Instrumental Account of Deception and Reactions to Deceit in Bargaining," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 57-73, January.
    4. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2009. "Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 347-365, March.
    5. Janet Fulk & Rebecca Heino & Andrew J. Flanagin & Peter R. Monge & François Bar, 2004. "A Test of the Individual Action Model for Organizational Information Commons," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 569-585, October.
    6. De Cremer, David & Dijk, Eric van, 2009. "Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 45-55, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joel M. Evans & Michael G. Hendron & James B. Oldroyd, 2015. "Withholding the Ace: The Individual- and Unit-Level Performance Effects of Self-Reported and Perceived Knowledge Hoarding," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 494-510, April.
    2. Glikson, Ella & Erez, Miriam, 2020. "The emergence of a communication climate in global virtual teams," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(6).
    3. Carsten K. W. Dreu & Tim R. W. Wilde & Femke S. Velden, 2021. "Intergroup Competition Mitigates Effects of Reward Structure on Preference-Consistency Bias and Group Decision Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 885-902, August.
    4. Claudia Toma & Fabrizio Butera, 2015. "Cooperation versus Competition Effects on Information Sharing and Us in Group Decision Making," Working Papers CEB 15-016, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Chang, Jin Wook & Chow, Rosalind M. & Woolley, Anita W., 2017. "Effects of inter-group status on the pursuit of intra-group status," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Blankenburg Holm, Desirée & Drogendijk, Rian & Haq, Hammad ul, 2020. "An attention-based view on managing information processing channels in organizations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2).
    7. Pereira, Vijay & Mohiya, Mohamed, 2021. "Share or hide? Investigating positive and negative employee intentions and organizational support in the context of knowledge sharing and hiding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 368-381.
    8. O'Leary, Kevin & Gleasure, Rob & O'Reilly, Philip & Feller, Joseph, 2022. "Introducing the concept of creative ancestry as a means of increasing perceived fairness and satisfaction in online collaboration: An experimental study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Annika Scholl & Florian Landkammer & Kai Sassenberg, 2019. "When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Joseph P. Gaspar & Redona Methasani & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2022. "Emotional Intelligence and Deception: A Theoretical Model and Propositions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 567-584, May.
    11. Claudia Toma & Fabrizio Butera, 2015. "Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-making," Post-Print CEB, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 9(9), pages 455-467, September.
    12. Jort de Vreeze & Christina Matschke, 2017. "Keeping up appearances: Strategic information exchange by disidentified group members," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, April.
    13. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    14. Mara Olekalns & Carol Kulik & Lin Chew, 2014. "Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 13-26, March.
    15. Super, Janice Francis & Li, Pingshu & Ishqaidef, Ghadir & Guthrie, James P., 2016. "Group rewards, group composition and information sharing: A motivated information processing perspective," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 31-44.
    16. Vanessa Dayeh & Ben W. Morrison, 2020. "The Effect of Perceived Competence and Competitive Environment on Team Decision-Making in the Hidden-Profile Paradigm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1181-1205, December.
    17. Beersma, Bianca & Homan, Astrid C. & Van Kleef, Gerben A. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2013. "Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 194-203.
    18. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    2. SimanTov-Nachlieli, Ilanit & Har-Vardi, Liron & Moran, Simone, 2020. "When negotiators with honest reputations are less (and more) likely to be deceived," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Pollack, Jeffrey M. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2014. "When do investors forgive entrepreneurs for lying?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 741-754.
    4. Rogers, Todd & Zeckhauser, Richard & Gino, Francesco & Schweitzer, Maurice & Norton, Mike, 2014. "Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others," Working Paper Series rwp14-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Minson, Julia A. & VanEpps, Eric M. & Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-93.
    6. Moshe Banai & Abraham Stefanidis & Ana Shetach & Mehmet Özbek, 2014. "Attitudes Toward Ethically Questionable Negotiation Tactics: A Two-Country Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 123(4), pages 669-685, September.
    7. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Joseph P. Gaspar & Redona Methasani & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2022. "Emotional Intelligence and Deception: A Theoretical Model and Propositions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 567-584, May.
    9. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.
    10. Kriss, Peter H. & Nagel, Rosemarie & Weber, Roberto A., 2013. "Implicit vs. explicit deception in ultimatum games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-346.
    11. Hillenbrand, Adrian & Winter, Fabian, 2018. "Volunteering under population uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 65-81.
    12. Lenka Mynaříková & Vít Pošta, 2023. "The Effect of Consumer Confidence and Subjective Well-being on Consumers’ Spending Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 429-453, February.
    13. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    14. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    15. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    16. McCarter, Matthew W. & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2010. "Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Muhammad Usman & Ahmed Abdul Hameed & Shahid Manzoor, 2018. "Exploring the links between Ethical Leadership and Organizational Unlearning: A Case Study of a European Multinational Company," Business & Economic Review, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan, vol. 10(2), pages 28-54, June.
    19. Matthew J. Robson & Constantine S. Katsikeas & Daniel C. Bello, 2008. "Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Trust in International Strategic Alliances: The Role of Organizational Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 647-665, August.
    20. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:113:y:2010:i:2:p:85-96. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.