Stage 1 Registered Report: How subtle linguistic cues prevent unethical behaviors

Abstract

Different ways of description can easily influence people’s evaluations and behaviors. A previous study by Bryan and colleagues suggested that subtle linguistic differences in ethical reminders can differentially prevent readers’ unethical behavior. The present study aims to replicate the previous finding in the Japanese context, additionally exploring the influence of unfamiliar instruction words that capture participants’ attention. In two experiments, which are planned to be conducted online, participants are asked to make 10 coin-tosses and report the number of “heads” results, indicating the amount of money that they can earn. We will manipulate instructions (“Don’t cheat” vs. “Don’t be a cheater” vs. baseline as a control) for each participant group, including nearly 270 participants (Experiment 1). Next, we will conduct an extended experiment with an additional task in which more attention is directed toward the text (Experiment 2). Through these registered experiments, we examine the credibility of the previous finding that type of instruction affects the occurrence of unethical behaviors.

Warning ‘Don't spread’ versus ‘Don't be a spreader’ to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic

“…It was probably because our study had several limitations. One of its limitations was that it had a longer time period until data collection than previous studies [4,9]. In particular, in an original study royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc.…”

“…However, the small sample size might overestimate the effect size. Therefore, as a replication convention [9,10], we halved the effect size of the original experiment (Cohen's f = 0.151), and used G Ã Power [11] to conduct a power analysis (Cohen's f = 0.151, α = 0.05, 1−β = 0.99, number of groups = 3), as a result of which we set N = 942 as the required sample size. Moreover, considering that many participants are often excluded in online surveys because of satisficing [12][13][14], and the dropout rate from the second wave, we have set almost double the required sample size (N = 1890) as the maximum sample size.…”

“…change of IP-intention and IP-behaviour scores). Guo et al [9] calculated the effect size of the original study [1] for a value of Cohen's f = 0.302. However, the small sample size might overestimate the effect size.…”

“…While the present study was conducted only with Japanese people; the previous study reported that the effects of the highlighting of self-identity occurred not only in Japan [9] but also in America and Israel [1,4]. Based on these findings in American and Israeli studies, the effects of highlighting self-identity on IP intention and behaviour might occur in these countries; and its null effects in the present study may perhaps have been due to potential factors peculiar to Japan that were related to the severity of COVID-19, the quality of the medical system and so on.…”