Cheating, incentives, and money manipulation

Charness, Gary; Blanco-Jimenez, Celia; Ezquerra, Lara; Rodríguez-Lara, Ismael

doi:10.1007/s10683-018-9584-1

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that our design (where we simply change the reference point) is not enough to trigger loss aversion. One further explanation is that there is a moral cost of cheating (Mazar et al 2008) and subjects do already cheat maximally in the Gain frame, thus the Loss frame cannot induce more cheating (Charness et al 2017). At any event, our result is in line with recent articles that do not find evidence of loss aversion (Harinck et al 2007, Gal andRucker 2017).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Gender differences in cheating: Loss vs. gain framing

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Gender differences in cheating: Loss vs. gain framing

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of adult populations have shown that adults do not necessarily behave in accordance to these models' predictions. Thus, whereas some studies have shown that adult DMs cheat more with loss framing than with gain framing (Grolleau, Kocher, & Sutan, ; Markiewicz et al, ; Markiewicz & Czupryna, ; Schindler & Pfattheicher, ; Teschner, ), other studies do not (Charness, Blanco‐Jimenez, Ezquerra, & Rodriguez‐Lara, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Similarly, studies of adult populations mostly show that adult DMs cheat more willingly to avoid losses (under loss framing) than to obtain rewards of the same magnitude (under gain framing; Grolleau et al, 2016;Markiewicz & Czupryna, 2019;Schindler & Pfattheicher, 2017;Teschner, 2014), although opposite results exist (Charness et al, 2018). Usually, the expectation that DMs should cheat more for losses is explained by the shape of the value function in PT (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

Markiewicz

Gawryluk

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although early economic approaches to misbehavior merely compare the monetary utility of accessible options, self‐concept maintenance models introduce moral considerations to the equation. These assume that people trade off possible gains to be made from moral transgressions with associated decreases in self‐esteem. On the basis of the assumption that the development of moral values among children is weaker than in adults, we expected children's behavior to be close to that of the hypothetical homo economicus, with their decisions as to whether to cheat therefore being influenced by decision theory elements: normative elements such as temptation magnitude, and behavioral elements such as framing. As children should pay no heed to moral considerations in dynamic multiple task settings, behavior opposite to “moral cleansing” was expected, with a first lie predicting later lies. In addition to testing the above ideas, the present study adopted a novel methodology. Our hypotheses were tested in a lab‐in‐the‐field study using a modified “roll a die” method in a naturalistic setting for children of ages 7 to 10. We modified the method to identify both true and declared values of die rolls (a novel DICE+ electronic die was used). As expected, children were sensitive to temptation and cheated more willingly for more attractive prizes. Girls (but not boys) lied more (in terms of both frequency and magnitude) to avoid losses (with loss framing) than to make gains (with gain framing). Previous lying correlated positively with lying on subsequent tasks.

show abstract

“…Similar designs were used by Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008), Greene & Paxton (2009), Fosgaard, Hansen & Piovesan (2013, Ploner & Regner, (2013), Shalvi & Leiser (2013), Pascual-Ezama, Prelec & Dunfield (2013), van't Veer, Stel & van Beest (2014) and Charness, Blanco, Ezquerra & Rodriguez-Lara (2017).…”

Section: Measure Of Honestymentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Capraro¹

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cheating, incentives, and money manipulation

Cited by 51 publications

References 86 publications

Gender differences in cheating: Loss vs. gain framing

Gender differences in cheating: Loss vs. gain framing

Cheating among children: Temptation, loss framing, and previous cheating

Who Lies? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Sex, Age, and Education on Honesty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About