Omertà in intragroup cheating: The role of ingroup identity in dishonesty and whistleblowing

M. Rullo, F. Presaghi, Conrad Baldner, S. Livi, F. Butera
{"title":"Omertà in intragroup cheating: The role of ingroup identity in dishonesty and whistleblowing","authors":"M. Rullo, F. Presaghi, Conrad Baldner, S. Livi, F. Butera","doi":"10.1177/13684302231164722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why are people willing to denounce or, contrarily, to keep silent on others’ misconduct? We hypothesized that people would be more likely to cheat, and consequently less likely to blow the whistle, when among an ingroup (vs. outgroup). In two experiments, participants witnessed a same nationality or a different nationality group member cheating during a group task. Participants either had the opportunity to cheat themselves before witnessing this cheating act (Experiments 1 and 2) or did not have this opportunity (Experiment 2). In the ingroup condition, participants cheated more and denounced others’ cheating less than in the outgroup condition (Experiments 1 and 2). However, when participants were not allowed to cheat themselves, they equally denounced ingroup and outgroup cheaters (Experiment 2). This provides evidence that cheating mediates the group effect on whistleblowing and is reminiscent of omertà, that is, the code of silence among criminals. We provide suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":108457,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231164722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why are people willing to denounce or, contrarily, to keep silent on others’ misconduct? We hypothesized that people would be more likely to cheat, and consequently less likely to blow the whistle, when among an ingroup (vs. outgroup). In two experiments, participants witnessed a same nationality or a different nationality group member cheating during a group task. Participants either had the opportunity to cheat themselves before witnessing this cheating act (Experiments 1 and 2) or did not have this opportunity (Experiment 2). In the ingroup condition, participants cheated more and denounced others’ cheating less than in the outgroup condition (Experiments 1 and 2). However, when participants were not allowed to cheat themselves, they equally denounced ingroup and outgroup cheaters (Experiment 2). This provides evidence that cheating mediates the group effect on whistleblowing and is reminiscent of omertà, that is, the code of silence among criminals. We provide suggestions for future research.
群体内欺骗:群体内认同在不诚实和举报中的作用
为什么人们愿意谴责或者相反,对别人的不端行为保持沉默?我们假设,在内部群体中(与外部群体相比),人们更有可能作弊,因此更不可能检举。在两个实验中,参与者目睹了同一国籍或不同国籍的小组成员在小组任务中作弊。参与者在目睹作弊行为之前有机会欺骗自己(实验1和2)或没有机会欺骗自己(实验2)。与外群体条件(实验1和2)相比,内群体条件下的参与者作弊次数更多,谴责他人作弊的次数更少。然而,当参与者不被允许欺骗自己时,他们同样谴责群体内和群体外的骗子(实验2)。这提供了证据,证明作弊介导了举报的群体效应,并使人联想到omert,即罪犯之间的沉默准则。并对今后的研究提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信