Dishonest responding or true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management

Zettler, Ingo; Hilbig, Benjamin E.; Moshagen, Morten; Vries, Reinout E. de

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.007

Cited by 74 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an online study involving N = 134 participants, Zettler, Hilbig, Moshagen, and de Vries (2015) investigated the hypothesis that dishonesty is negatively (rather than positively) related to scores on an impression management (IM) scale. To obtain a behavioral measure of dishonesty, participants were instructed to toss a coin exactly twice and were rewarded with a monetary gain if they reported exactly two successes.…”

Section: Empirical Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms

Moshagen

Hilbig

2016

Behav Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One type of paradigm commonly used in studies on unethical behavior implements a lottery, relying on a randomization device to determine winnings while ensuring that the randomized outcome is only known to participants. Thereby, participants have the incentive and opportunity to cheat by anonymously claiming to have won. Data obtained in such a way are often analyzed using the observed Bwin^responses as a proxy for actual dishonesty. However, because the observed Bwin^response is contaminated by honest respondents who actually won, such an approach only allows for inferring dishonesty indirectly and leads to substantially underestimated effects. As a remedy, we outline approaches to estimate correlations between dishonesty and other variables, as well as to predict dishonesty in a modified logistic regression model. Using both simulated and empirical data, we demonstrate the superiority and relevance of the suggested methods.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms

Moshagen

Hilbig

2016

Behav Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, people are more likely to be biased toward themselves when they consider being added as a coauthor. This could decrease the amount of variation in the outcome measure (Honkaniemi and Feldt, 2008; Zettler et al, 2015). …”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture and Unmerited Authorship Credit: Who Wants It and Why?

Ren

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unmerited authorship is a practice common to many countries around the world, but are there systematic cultural differences in the practice? We tested whether scientists from collectivistic countries are more likely to add unmerited coauthors than scientists from individualistic countries. We analyzed archival data from top scientific journals (Study 1) and found that national collectivism predicted the number of authors, which might suggest more unmerited authors. Next, we found that collectivistic scientists were more likely to add unmerited coauthors than individualistic scientists, both between cultures (Studies 2–3) and within cultures (Study 4). Finally, we found that priming people with collectivistic self-construal primes made them more likely to endorse questionable authorship attitudes (Study 5). These findings show that culture collectivism is related to unmerited authorship.

show abstract

“…This may have led to students overestimating their anti-violence attitudes. Although future research could consider adding a lie scale to assess social desirability, many researchers suggest that corrections made for social desirability are ineffective (Ellingson, Sackett, & Hough, 1999;McCrae & Costa, 1983;Zettler, Hilbig, Moshagen, & de Vries, 2015). That the two sub-scales were highly correlated could also be viewed as a limitation.…”

Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitude to Non-Violence Scale: Validity and Practical Use

Craven

Seaton

Yeung

2015

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used recent advances in attitude and self-perception research to develop an Attitude to Non-Violence Scale (ANVS). Participants were students from six high schools in Australia ( N = 727). Confirmatory factor analysis using within-construct and between-construct validation approaches found two positive attitude sub-scales: Cognitive (proactive understanding) and Affective (do not endorse violence), both showing convergent and discriminant validity. Scale equivalence tests found that the sub-scales were applicable to boys and girls and to junior and senior grades. Structural equation modeling found that boys had less supportive attitudes to non-violence cognitively, whereas female students in senior secondary classes had less positive attitudes to non-violence affectively. The ANVS can be easily administered to assess youth's non-violence attitudes, which may direct interventions focusing on boys' cognitive aspects while maintaining girls' positive affective attitudes toward non-violence as they mature. The positively framed instrument is suitable for education settings especially in high-risk locations where violence is prevalent.

show abstract

Dishonest responding or true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management

Cited by 74 publications

References 27 publications

The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms

The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms

Culture and Unmerited Authorship Credit: Who Wants It and Why?

Attitude to Non-Violence Scale: Validity and Practical Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About