Temptation and cheating behavior: Experimental evidence

Pate, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2018.05.006

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, various studies raise doubts about women's higher truthfulness. Some studies do not find evidence of gender differences in deceptive behavior at all (Childs, 2012;Ezquerra et al, 2018;Pate, 2018). Others find mixed evidence and discuss the potential impact of the gender composition of groups (Muehlheusser et al, 2015) or the implications of who benefits from a lie (Biziou- Van-Pol et al, 2015;Cappelen et al, 2013;Capraro, 2018;Dreber and Johannesson, 2008;Erat and Gneezy, 2012).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior

Lohse

Qari

2021

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the role of face-to-face interaction for gender differences in deceptive behavior and perceived honesty. In the first part, we compare women to men's deceptive behavior using data from an incentivized income-reporting experiment with three treatments. Reporting is fully computerized in a baseline treatment but occurs face-to-face in the second and third treatment. Lies can be detected in the course of an audit, which happens with a given probability in the first and second treatment whereas it depends on perceptions by others in the third treatment. In the computerized baseline treatment, men and women's deceptive behavior is statistically indistinguishable. However, women's truthfulness increases when face-to-face interaction is introduced in the second treatment. In contrast, males' deceptive behavior does not change until the audit probability depends on their perceived honesty in the third treatment. Then, men's truthfulness rises sharply and exceeds women's level of honesty by far. We elaborate on these gender differences in the second part. We conduct an experiment to assess the honesty of videotaped income-reporting statements from a setting identical to the third treatment. Our findings confirm that men anticipate their low perceived honesty, which is consistent with the results from the first part.

show abstract

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior

Lohse

Qari

2021

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, various studies raise doubts about women's higher truthfulness. Some studies do not find evidence of gender differences in deceptive behavior at all (Childs, 2012;Ezquerra et al, 2018;Pate, 2018). Others find mixed evidence and discuss the potential impact of the gender composition of groups (Muehlheusser et al, 2015) or the implications of who benefits from a lie (Biziou-Van-Pol et al, 2015;Cappelen et al, 2013;Capraro, 2018;Dreber and Johannesson, 2008;Erat and Gneezy, 2012).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior

Lohse

Qari

2020

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The key feature of our design-and a novelty with respect to D' Adda et al (2017)-is that before rolling the die, participants are asked to decide how to report the die-rolling outcome. Similar to Pate (2018) and Feltovich (2019), our subjects can choose between two reporting methods: a computer draw ("automatic reporting") or a self-reported die roll ("self-reporting"). 1 Under automatic reporting, subjects roll a virtual die, and the computer automatically reports the outcome on their screen, thus making any manipulation impossible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Leaders Influence (un)Ethical Behaviors Within Organizations: A Laboratory Experiment on Reporting Choices

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a lab experiment to examine whether and how leaders influence workers’ (un)ethical behavior through financial reporting choices. We randomly assign the role of leaders or workers to subjects, who can choose to report an outcome via automatic or self-reporting. Self-reporting allows for profitable and undetectable earnings manipulation. We vary the leaders’ ability to choose the reporting method and to punish workers. We show that workers are more likely to choose automatic reporting when their leader voluntarily does so and can assign punishment. Even workers who choose self-reporting tend to cheat less when their leader chooses automatic reporting. Nonetheless, most leaders do not opt for automatic reporting in the first place: they often choose self-reporting and punish workers who rather choose automatic reporting. Collectively, our results reveal a dual effect of leadership on ethical behaviors in organizations: workers behave more ethically if their leader makes ethical choices, but often leaders do not make ethical choices in the first place. Hence, leading by example can backfire.

show abstract

Temptation and cheating behavior: Experimental evidence

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior

Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior

Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior

How Leaders Influence (un)Ethical Behaviors Within Organizations: A Laboratory Experiment on Reporting Choices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About