Disentangling dishonesty: An empirical investigation of the nature of lying and cheating.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Samuel E Skowronek
{"title":"Disentangling dishonesty: An empirical investigation of the nature of lying and cheating.","authors":"Samuel E Skowronek","doi":"10.1037/xge0001751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When people lie, they knowingly misrepresent factual information. When people cheat, they create fraudulent information. Though these two types of unethical behavior are distinct, behavioral ethics scholarship has conflated lying with cheating. The canonical experimental paradigms used in behavioral ethics assess lying behavior. They do not assess cheating behavior. Scholars, however, have used findings from studies of lying to develop theories about cheating. This approach has limited our understanding of unethical behavior. Across one pilot study and 14 preregistered experiments using online panels (N = 7,684), I disentangle cheating from lying and demonstrate that cheating and lying are not only theoretically distinct but also meaningfully different behaviors. Specifically, I show that liars are less likely than cheaters to submit a profit-maximizing report and cheaters often feel more positive about themselves after cheating than liars feel after lying. Further, I show that feelings of comfort mediate cheaters' increased willingness to submit a profit-maximizing report and that the decreased likelihood to submit a profit-maximizing report for lying behavior is attenuated when people know that they will not need evidence to corroborate their claims. By identifying these differences, this work reconciles conflicting findings in behavioral ethics scholarship and builds a clearer conceptual foundation for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":"154 5","pages":"1407-1427"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001751","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When people lie, they knowingly misrepresent factual information. When people cheat, they create fraudulent information. Though these two types of unethical behavior are distinct, behavioral ethics scholarship has conflated lying with cheating. The canonical experimental paradigms used in behavioral ethics assess lying behavior. They do not assess cheating behavior. Scholars, however, have used findings from studies of lying to develop theories about cheating. This approach has limited our understanding of unethical behavior. Across one pilot study and 14 preregistered experiments using online panels (N = 7,684), I disentangle cheating from lying and demonstrate that cheating and lying are not only theoretically distinct but also meaningfully different behaviors. Specifically, I show that liars are less likely than cheaters to submit a profit-maximizing report and cheaters often feel more positive about themselves after cheating than liars feel after lying. Further, I show that feelings of comfort mediate cheaters' increased willingness to submit a profit-maximizing report and that the decreased likelihood to submit a profit-maximizing report for lying behavior is attenuated when people know that they will not need evidence to corroborate their claims. By identifying these differences, this work reconciles conflicting findings in behavioral ethics scholarship and builds a clearer conceptual foundation for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

拆解不诚实:对撒谎和欺骗本质的实证调查。
当人们撒谎时,他们会故意歪曲事实信息。当人们作弊时,他们创造了虚假的信息。虽然这两种类型的不道德行为是截然不同的,但行为伦理学学者将撒谎与作弊混为一谈。行为伦理学中使用的典型实验范式评估说谎行为。他们不评估作弊行为。然而,学者们利用对谎言的研究发现来发展关于欺骗的理论。这种方法限制了我们对不道德行为的理解。通过一项试点研究和14个使用在线小组(N = 7,684)的预注册实验,我将作弊与撒谎分开,并证明作弊和撒谎不仅在理论上是不同的,而且在意义上也是不同的行为。具体来说,我表明说谎者比骗子更不可能提交利润最大化的报告,而骗子在作弊后往往比说谎者在撒谎后感觉更积极。此外,我还表明,舒适的感觉调节了骗子提交利润最大化报告的意愿的增加,而当人们知道他们不需要证据来证实他们的说法时,提交利润最大化报告的可能性降低了。通过识别这些差异,本工作调和了行为伦理学术研究中相互矛盾的发现,并为未来的研究建立了更清晰的概念基础。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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