Honesty–humility negatively correlates with dishonesty in romantic relationships.

Reinhardt, Nina; Reinhard, Marc‐André

doi:10.1037/pspp0000456

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Cole (2001) identified low commitment and higher levels of avoidant and anxious attachment styles as important predictors for increased deception in romantic partnerships. Recently, Reinhardt and Reinhard (2023) identified the Honesty-Humility factor (from the HEXACO model of personality; Ashton and Lee, 2007 ) as a key predictor for relationship-based dishonesty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agentic and communal narcissism in predicting different types of lies in romantic relationships

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have investigated a potential positive association between agentic narcissism and general dishonesty, revealing both supportive and contradicting evidence. Few have focused on dishonesty within romantic relationships, a phenomenon that occurs in almost all partnerships. With the present research, we first aimed to extend existing literature on narcissism by including its two complementary facets (i.e., agentic and communal narcissism). Second, we aimed to improve the understanding of narcissists’ lying behavior in the context of partnerships by distinguishing between two different types of lies (i.e., self-centered and other-oriented lies). We hypothesized that both, people higher in agentic and communal narcissism, will report increased dishonesty toward their romantic partners (Hypothesis 1). Given the self-benefit function of self-centered lies and given that agentic narcissists aim to fulfill their relationship-based motives by agentic means, we predict agentic narcissism (compared with communal narcissism) will be a stronger predictor for self-centered lies (Hypothesis 1a). Given the other-benefiting function of other-oriented lies and given that communal narcissists aim to fulfill their motive of self-enhancement by communal means, we predict that communal narcissism (compared with agentic narcissism) will be a stronger predictor for other-oriented lies (Hypothesis 1b). In two preregistered online studies (N = 298: N = 256) we showed that people higher in agentic narcissism believed to be good liars, but this does not lead to higher self-reported frequencies of other-oriented and self-centered lies within romantic relationships historically; communal narcissism was also not related to self-reported deception. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agentic and communal narcissism in predicting different types of lies in romantic relationships

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In support of its conceptualization as trait honesty, two separate meta-analyses have demonstrated consistent, robust relationships between measures of HH and indicators of (dis)honesty (Heck, Thielmann, Moshagen, & Hilbig, 2018;Zettler, Thielmann, Hilbig, & Moshagen, 2020). Recent work also indicates that HH predicts less dishonesty in romantic relationships (Reinhardt & Reinhard, 2023).…”

Section: Honest Contentmentioning

confidence: 94%

Honest Behavior: Truth-Seeking, Belief-Speaking, and Fostering Understanding of the Truth in Others

Cooper

Cohen

Huppert

et al. 2023

ANNALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While people across the world value honesty, it is undeniable that it can sometimes pay to be dishonest. This tension leads people to engage in complex behaviors that stretch the boundaries of honesty. Such behaviors include strategically avoiding information, dodging questions, omitting information, and making true but misleading statements. Though not lies per se, these are nonetheless deviations from honesty that have serious interpersonal, organizational, and societal costs. Based on a systematic review of 169 empirical research articles in the fields of management, organizational behavior, applied psychology, and business ethics, we develop a new multidimensional framework of honesty that highlights how honesty encompasses more than the absence of lies-it has relational elements (e.g., fostering an accurate understanding in others through what we disclose and how we communicate) and intellectual elements (e.g., evaluating information for accuracy, searching for accurate information, and updating our beliefs accordingly). By acknowledging that honesty is not limited to the moment when a person utters a clear lie or a full truth, and that there are multiple stages to enacting honesty, we emphasize the shared responsibility that all parties involved in communication have for seeking out and communicating truthful information.broader context in which honest communications take place to understand how honest communications are received by targets Rogers & Norton, 2011), as well as the direct implications for targets' subsequent personal and professional well-being (Allan, 2015;VanEpps & Hart, 2022).We propose that honesty is a dyadic process that starts before the communication act with the development and validation of the beliefs the communicator intends to share or withhold.Following belief formation, individuals must decide, not only how truthfully to communicate, but also how much information to disclose and how to deliver this information to the target. We deviate from other conceptualizations of honesty in that we argue that a completely honest communication act requires the accurate statement of one's beliefs and the tailoring of one's statements to the intended target to foster understanding of the truth. The honesty process continues after the initial communication with elaboration, verification, and correction of the recipient's understanding of the message. Therefore, to understand honesty, researchers must consider all stages of this dyadic process, from belief formation to recipient understanding. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HONESTY RESEARCHWe completed an integrative systematic review of empirical research on honesty in the fields of management, organizational behavior, applied psychology, and business ethics. To arrive at a comprehensive collection of peer-reviewed empirical articles to review, we followed a multi-stage process consisting of: (1) article selection, (2) quality assessment (i.e., inclusion/exclusion of articles based on specific criteria), (3) data extraction (i.e., coding), (4) synthesi...

show abstract

“…Relative to their peers, individuals high in H tend to be more honest, fair, sincere, and humble, as well as less greedy and manipulative (Lee & Ashton, 2022, HEXACO.org). H is a strong predictor of ethical behavior, both in and out of the workplace (Cohen, Panter, et al, 2014; De Vries, 2012; Heck et al, 2018; Hilbig & Zettler, 2015; Hodson et al, 2018; Kim & Cohen, 2015; Lee & Ashton, 2012; Lee et al, 2008; Reinhardt & Reinhard, 2023; Thielmann et al, 2020; Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015). Like GP, research has established self‐other agreement on H, indicating that individuals who are higher in H are recognized by their peers as being so (Ashton & Lee, 2009; Cohen et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral beacons: Understanding moral character and moral influence

Helzer,

Cohen,

Kim

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe introduce the concept of moral beacons—individuals who are higher in moral character than their peers and prominent within their social environment—and examine the degree to which moral beacons increase the moral awareness of their peers.BackgroundUsing data from cohorts of students in graduate business education across two universities, we applied theory and methods from organizational behavior, personality psychology, and social networks analysis to test two research questions about moral beacons.MethodWe used latent profile analysis of data from personality questionnaires and social network surveys completed by graduate business students at two universities (N = 502) to identify individuals classified as moral beacons. We used peer nominations and an in‐class business case discussion exercise to assess moral influence.ResultsLatent profile analysis identified a latent class of moral beacons in our sample. These individuals received more nominations from their peers in end‐of‐class surveys as guides for moral thought and action and positively impacted the moral awareness of their peers in a discussion of a difficult business case about possible lead poisoning of employees, but did not significantly change their counterparts' moral awareness in a different case.ConclusionsThese results provide promising initial evidence that moral beacons can be distinguished from their peers by both moral character and social prominence and can act as guides for others, at times encouraging greater consideration of the moral aspects of situations and decisions. As these results are the first of their kind, we encourage further replication and investigations of moral beacons and moral influence in other settings.

show abstract

Honesty–humility negatively correlates with dishonesty in romantic relationships.

Cited by 8 publications

References 57 publications

Agentic and communal narcissism in predicting different types of lies in romantic relationships

Agentic and communal narcissism in predicting different types of lies in romantic relationships

Honest Behavior: Truth-Seeking, Belief-Speaking, and Fostering Understanding of the Truth in Others

Moral beacons: Understanding moral character and moral influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About