IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v92y2021ics2214804321000392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robin Hood meets Pinocchio: Justifications increase cheating behavior but decrease physiological tension

Author

Listed:
  • Hochman, Guy
  • Peleg, Dar
  • Ariely, Dan
  • Ayal, Shahar

Abstract

We investigated whether altruistic justification increases cheating behavior while suppressing its associated physiological arousal. In the first study (n = 60), participants strategically employed altruistic considerations to justify their dishonesty and promote their personal goals. In the second study (n = 110), participants who worked to benefit others (compared to participants who worked to benefit themselves) cheated more and were less likely to be detected by a lie detector test. In addition, among participants who worked to benefit others, more honest participants experienced higher psychological distress than dishonest participants. These findings suggest that physiological arousal may be a good indicator of self-interest cheating, but not justified one.

Suggested Citation

  • Hochman, Guy & Peleg, Dar & Ariely, Dan & Ayal, Shahar, 2021. "Robin Hood meets Pinocchio: Justifications increase cheating behavior but decrease physiological tension," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:92:y:2021:i:c:s2214804321000392
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2021.101699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804321000392
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ernst Fehr & Ivo Schurtenberger, 2018. "Normative foundations of human cooperation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(7), pages 458-468, July.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:728-738 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wiltermuth, Scott S., 2011. "Cheating more when the spoils are split," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 157-168, July.
    4. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    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. Dar Peleg & Guy Hochman & Timothy Levine & Yechiel Klar & Shahar Ayal, 2021. "Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1525-1548, November.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1525-1548 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    2. Danilov, Anastasia & Biemann, Torsten & Kring, Thorn & Sliwka, Dirk, 2013. "The dark side of team incentives: Experimental evidence on advice quality from financial service professionals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 266-272.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Behnk, Sascha & Hao, Li & Reuben, Ernesto, 2022. "Shifting normative beliefs: On why groups behave more antisocially than individuals," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    6. Jeroen Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Dishonesty under scrutiny," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-99, July.
    7. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A., 2021. "Compliance in teams – Implications of joint decisions and shared consequences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Mitkidis, Panagiotis & Ayal, Shahar & Shalvi, Shaul & Heimann, Katrin & Levy, Gabriel & Kyselo, Miriam & Wallot, Sebastian & Ariely, Dan & Roepstorff, Andreas, 2017. "The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: The performers-observers gap hypothesis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-7.
    9. Zamir Eyal, 2020. "Refounding Law and Economics: Behavioral Support for the Predictions of Standard Economic Analysis," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-35, July.
    10. Fochmann, Martin & Fochmann, Nadja & Kocher, Martin G. & Müller, Nadja, 2021. "Dishonesty and risk-taking: Compliance decisions of individuals and groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 250-286.
    11. Lupoli, Matthew J. & Levine, Emma E. & Greenberg, Adam Eric, 2018. "Paternalistic lies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-50.
    12. Vecchi, Martina, 2022. "Groups and socially responsible production: An experiment with farmers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 372-392.
    13. Martin G. Kocher & Simeon Schudy & Lisa Spantig, 2018. "I Lie? We Lie! Why? Experimental Evidence on a Dishonesty Shift in Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 3995-4008, September.
    14. Battiston, Pietro & Gamba, Simona & Rizzolli, Matteo & Rotondi, Valentina, 2021. "Lies have long legs cheating, peer scrutiny and loyalty in teams," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:563-571 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Chua, Scott Lee & Chang, Jessica & Riambau, Guillem, 2022. "Lying behavior when payoffs are shared with charity: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Hillenbrand, Adrian & Verrina, Eugenio, 2022. "The asymmetric effect of narratives on prosocial behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 241-270.
    18. Zhang, Shanshan & Gomies, Matthew & Bejanyan, Narek & Fang, Zhou & Justo, Jason & Lin, Li-Hsin & Narender, Rainita & Tasoff, Joshua, 2020. "Trick for a treat: The effect of costume, identity, and peers on norm violations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 460-474.
    19. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant, 2018. "It's Not A Lie If You Believe It. Lying and Belief Distortion Under Norm-Uncertainty," PPE Working Papers 0012, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    20. Alem, Yonas & Eggert, Håkan & Kocher, Martin G. & Ruhinduka, Remidius D., 2018. "Why (field) experiments on unethical behavior are important: Comparing stated and revealed behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 71-85.
    21. Grégoire Bollmann & Franciska Krings, 2016. "Workgroup Climates and Employees’ Counterproductive Work Behaviours: A Social-Cognitive Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 184-209, March.
    22. Laura Biziou-van-Pol & Jana Haenen & Arianna Novaro & Andrés Occhipinti & Valerio Capraro, 2015. "Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 538-548, November.

    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:soceco:v:92:y:2021:i:c:s2214804321000392. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.