The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Jing Liang , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , Wen-Jing Yan
{"title":"The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making","authors":"Jing Liang ,&nbsp;Jun Qian ,&nbsp;Ya-Jing Zhang ,&nbsp;Wang-Cheng Cen ,&nbsp;Wen-Jing Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (<em>F</em> (6, 288) = 6.96, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01 or <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (<em>r</em> = −0.77, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"240 ","pages":"Article 113141"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925001035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (F (6, 288) = 6.96, p < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (r = −0.77, p < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
×
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