IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03900809.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are groups always more dishonest than individuals? The case of salient negative externalities

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey Castillo

    (VCEE - Vienna Center for Experimental Economics, University of Vienna)

  • Lawrence Choo

    (China Center for Behavioral Economics and Finance, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

  • Veronika Grimm

    (FAU - Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg = University of Erlangen-Nuremberg)

Abstract

A common finding of the literature on dishonesty is that groups are more dishonest than individuals. We revisit this finding by replacing the experimenter, implicitly hurt by subjects' dishonesty, with an explicit third-party: a local charity. With the charity we do not find groups to be more dishonest than individuals. Instead, groups can even help moderate the extent of the dishonesty.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey Castillo & Lawrence Choo & Veronika Grimm, 2022. "Are groups always more dishonest than individuals? The case of salient negative externalities," Post-Print hal-03900809, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03900809
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.04.014
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03900809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03900809/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.04.014?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas & Wallmeier, Niklas, 2015. "Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 25-29.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Deception Through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence From Individuals and Teams," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 47-60, January.
    5. Arthur Schram & Gary Charness, 2015. "Inducing Social Norms in Laboratory Allocation Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1531-1546, July.
    6. Barr, Abigail & Michailidou, Georgia, 2017. "Complicity without connection or communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo & Collin Raymond, 2019. "Preferences for Truth‐Telling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1115-1153, July.
    9. Julie Chytilova & Vaclav Korbel, 2014. "Individual and Group Cheating Behavior: A Field Experiment with Adolescents," Working Papers IES 2014/06, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Mar 2014.
    10. Choo, Lawrence & Grimm, Veronika & Horváth, Gergely & Nitta, Kohei, 2019. "Whistleblowing and diffusion of responsibility: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 287-301.
    11. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    12. Papke, Leslie E. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 121-133, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Gerald J. Pruckner & Rupert Sausgruber, 2013. "Honesty On The Streets: A Field Study On Newspaper Purchasing," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 661-679, June.
    15. Cason, Timothy N & Mui, Vai-Lam, 1997. "A Laboratory Study of Group Polarisation in the Team Dictator Game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1465-1483, September.
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Graeme Pearce, 2021. "Understanding the Link between Intelligence and Lying," CESifo Working Paper Series 9223, CESifo.
    17. Conrads, Julian & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rilke, Rainer Michael & Walkowitz, Gari, 2013. "Lying and team incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-7.
    18. Duch, Matthias L. & Grossmann, Max R.P. & Lauer, Thomas, 2020. "z-Tree unleashed: A novel client-integrating architecture for conducting z-Tree experiments over the Internet," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    19. Soraperra, Ivan & Weisel, Ori & Zultan, Ro’i & Kochavi, Sys & Leib, Margarita & Shalev, Hadar & Shalvi, Shaul, 2017. "The bad consequences of teamwork," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 12-15.
    20. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Castillo, Geoffrey & Choo, Lawrence & Grimm, Veronika, 2020. "Are groups really more dishonest than individuals?," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 01/2020, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics, revised 2020.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. Shuguang Jiang & Marie Claire Villeval, 2024. "Dishonesty as a collective‐risk social dilemma," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(1), pages 223-241, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Feess, Eberhard & Schilling, Thomas & Timofeyev, Yuriy, 2023. "Misreporting in teams with individual decision making: The impact of information and communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 509-532.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo & Collin Raymond, 2019. "Preferences for Truth‐Telling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1115-1153, July.
    9. Chadi, Adrian & Homolka, Konstantin, 2022. "Little Lies and Blind Eyes – Experimental Evidence on Cheating and Task Performance in Work Groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 122-159.
    10. Tobias Beck & Christoph Bühren & Björn Frank & Elina Khachatryan, 2020. "Can Honesty Oaths, Peer Interaction, or Monitoring Mitigate Lying?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 467-484, May.
    11. Florian Engl, 2020. "Ideological Motivation and Group Decision-Making," CESifo Working Paper Series 8742, CESifo.
    12. Sanjit Dhami, 2017. "Human Ethics and Virtues: Rethinking the Homo-Economicus Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 6836, CESifo.
    13. Irlenbusch, Bernd & Mussweiler, Thomas & Saxler, David J. & Shalvi, Shaul & Weiss, Alexa, 2020. "Similarity increases collaborative cheating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 148-173.
    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. Georgia Michailidou & Hande Erkut, 2022. "Lie O'Clock: Experimental Evidence on Intertemporal Lying Preferences," Working Papers 20220076, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Apr 2022.
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Martin G. Kocher, 2021. "Cheating in Labour Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 8942, CESifo.
    17. Rilke, Rainer Michael & Danilov, Anastasia & Weisel, Ori & Shalvi, Shaul & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2021. "When leading by example leads to less corrupt collaboration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 288-306.
    18. Dannenberg, Astrid & Khachatryan, Elina, 2020. "A comparison of individual and group behavior in a competition with cheating opportunities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 533-547.
    19. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    20. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "White lies in tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dishonesty; Group decisions; Communication; Social norms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-03900809. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.