The Cheater's High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior

Ruedy, Nicole E.; Moore, Celia; Gino, Francesca; Schweitzer, Maurice E.

doi:10.1037/e519702015-087

Cited by 25 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This increased self-awareness makes them more likely to evaluate whether their behavior meets personal ethical standards (Rockmann & Northcraft, 2008), which should curtail opportunistic behavior motivated purely by self-interest. The prospect of violating one's ethical standards triggers an anticipation of negative affect (Ruedy, Moore, Gino, & Schweitzer, 2013) and lay theories about gaze aversion are consistent with this notion. Although gaze aversion is not a reliable cue to deception (DePaulo et al, 2003), the faulty lay perception that it is (Rotenberg & Sullivan, 2003;Vrij & Granhag, 2007) may reflect expectations of a nonverbal reaction to shame (Keltner & Harker, 1998) triggered by telling a lie.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 50%

“I can't lie to your face”: Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty

Zant

Kray

2014

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title"I can't lie to your face": Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty H I G H L I G H T S• We randomly assign people to communicate face-to-face (FTF) or through an intermediary prior to and during a game.• We find that in-game FTF interaction promotes honesty relative to communication through an intermediary.• The effect of in-game communication medium was mediated by individuals' attunement to their moral-interest.• We rule out accounts involving mechanisms like rapport and perceived trust.• The effect was not moderated by the removal of anonymity during a pre-game interaction. Scholars have noted that face-to-face (FTF) interaction promotes honesty because it provides opportunities for conversation in which parties exchange information and build rapport. However, it is unclear whether FTF interaction promotes honesty even in the absence of opportunities for back-and-forth conversation. We hypothesized a minimal interaction effect whereby FTF interaction promotes honesty by increasing potential deceivers' consideration of their own moral-interest. To test this account of how FTF interaction may promote honesty, we used a modified version of the deception game (Gneezy, 2005). We found that people were more honest when communicating FTF as opposed to through an intermediary. While FTF interaction tended to promote honesty irrespective of whether it occurred prior to or during the game, the effect was more pronounced when it occurred during the game. The effect of in-game communication medium was mediated by the activation of potential deceivers' moral-interest. We also ruled out alternate accounts involving interpersonal liking, expected counterpart trust, and retaliation fear as honesty-promoting mechanisms. Furthermore, because these effects were not moderated by whether participants had been visually identified during a pre-game interaction, we suggest that our effects are distinct from theoretical accounts involving anonymity. a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oPublished by Elsevier Inc.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 50%

“I can't lie to your face”: Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty

Zant

Kray

2014

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Put simply, our moral evaluations and decisions are not only guided by conscious rational thought processes but also by quick and affect-laden processes (e.g. Ruedy, Moore, & Gino, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach

Cremer

Vandekerckhove

2016

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues of morality and ethics have increasingly become more important in organizations and business settings. Traditionally, these issues of ethics and social responsibility in business settings have been discussed and commented on by prescriptive approaches that are grounded in philosophical traditions. Building on the idea that we need to develop a more comprehensive and complete understanding of the value that people assign to ethics and how it influences their actions and decisions, in the present article we discuss and review the importance and relevance of adopting also a descriptive approach that is grounded in the behavioral sciences (referred to as behavioral business ethics). This approach has the advantages to promote our insights into how people can show both good and bad behavior and why this is the case. Behavioral business ethics therefore represents an important research challenge for organizational researchers to pursue and engage more meaningfully with more prescriptive approaches.

show abstract

“…Wood and colleagues (1997) stated that the positive emotional response associated with deviant behavior would be a psychological reward that reinforced the behavior. In a series of six studies, Ruedy et al (2013) found that contrary to many predictions, rather than feeling negative emotions such as remorse after amoral behavior, individuals tended to report feelings of positive emotions more frequently. Ruedy and colleagues (2013) termed these positive emotions a cheater's high.…”

Section: Direct Effects Of Theory Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This thrill-seeking is a drive in all of us to varying degrees and can be a reinforcing reward on its own. Several studies have found a connection between crime or immoral behavior and positive feelings (Brezina & Aragones, 2004;Romer & Hennessy, 2007;Ruedy et al, 2013;Schaefer, 2016).…”

Section: Theoretical Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, there have been numerous studies examining the connection between deviant behavior and risk-taking or sensation seeking (Brezina & Aragones, 2004;Romer & Hennessy, 2007;Ruedy, Moore, Gino, & Schweitzer, 2013;Wood, Cochran, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1995;Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 1993), supporting the influence of physiological rewards on behavior proposed by nonsocial reinforcement theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The sources of behavioral reinforcement : an examination of nonsocial reinforcement theory.

Tolle¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cheater's High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

“I can't lie to your face”: Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty

“I can't lie to your face”: Minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty

Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach

The sources of behavioral reinforcement : an examination of nonsocial reinforcement theory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About