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 , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , 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> < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> < 0.01 or <em>p</em> < 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> < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> < 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.
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.