The impact of two different economic systems on dishonesty

Ariely, Dan; Garcia‐Rada, Ximena; Gödker, Katrin; Hornuf, Lars; Mann, Heather

doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.02.010

Cited by 24 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevalence of selfish behavior in economic allocation tasks differs widely across cultures (e.g., Henrich et al, 2001; Mellers et al, 2010), and the acceptability of profit-seeking motives may depend on the strength of societal institutions, the prevalence of corruption, and beliefs about the state of the world (Peysakhovich & Rand, 2016; Różycka-Tran, Boski, & Wojciszke, 2015). Though some findings suggest that industrialized market societies promote selfish value orientations (e.g., Kasser et al, 2007), an emerging body of research finds that economic development strengthens institutions, reduces cheating and corruption, and promotes more collaborative views of market exchange (Ariely, Garcia-Rada, Godker, Hornuf, & Mann, 2017; Mazar & Aggarwal, 2011). People in developing societies that are currently experiencing dramatic wealth gains through profit-seeking enterprise may endorse the societal benefits of profit more readily than people in wealthy, developed societies that experienced these wealth gains in the past (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit.

Bhattacharjee

Dana

Baron

2017

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Profit-seeking firms are stereotypically depicted as immoral and harmful to society. At the same time, profit-driven enterprise has contributed immensely to human prosperity. Though scholars agree that profit can incentivize societally beneficial behaviors, people may neglect this possibility. In 7 studies, we show that people see business profit as necessarily in conflict with social good, a view we call . Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that U.S. participants hold anti-profit views of real U.S. firms and industries. Study 3 shows that hypothetical organizations are seen as doing more harm when they are labeled "for-profit" rather than "non-profit," while Study 4 shows that increasing harm to society is viewed as a strategy for increasing a hypothetical firm's long-run profitability. Studies 5-7 demonstrate that carefully prompting subjects to consider the long run incentives of profit can attenuate anti-profit beliefs, while prompting short run thinking does nothing relative to a control. Together, these results suggest that the default view of profits is zero-sum. While people readily grasp how profit can incentivize firms to engage in practices that harm others, they neglect how it can incentivize firms to engage in practices that benefit others. Accordingly, people's stereotypes of profit-seeking firms are excessively negative. Even in one of the most market-oriented societies in history, people doubt the contributions of profit-seeking industry to societal progress. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit.

Bhattacharjee

Dana

Baron

2017

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental research has helped to identify the situational correlates of fraud behaviours, but lacks a theoretical framework for organising the phenomenon of organisational fraud operated by organisational leaders (Power, 2013). In addition, extensive studies have shown that people engaging in misconduct is not because of the existence of opportunities of doing so (Gneezy, 2005; Ariely et al , 2019; Knechel and Mintchik, 2021; for a review about the concept of fraud tolerance). Taken together, those studies support the view that the increase in the rate of organisational illegalities is not merely a function of the increased opportunities for doing such acts as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corruption as distinct crime: the need to reconceptualise internal control on controlling bureaucratic occupational fraud

Maulidi

Ansell

2021

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide theoretical guidance that enables local governments to deal with occupational fraud. Design/methodology/approach The quantitative approach is used to examine the efficacy of the Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) internal control framework in tackling occupational fraud in local government. To achieve the goals, the authors performed a survey of the Indonesian auditor institutions. Findings It is not appropriate to argue that all types of local government fraud can be deterred by a single internal control. The study suggests that COSO internal controls are not effective for dealing with corruption cases. However, the authors do find the efficacy of those controls are obvious for controlling asset misappropriation and financial statement fraud. This result indicates that if the COSO internal control framework is only designed for routine financial control and asset protection, it significantly and negatively influences its efficacy to deal with occupational fraud. This study has both theoretical and managerial implications, discussed separately. Originality/value In the field of prevention, the authors cannot make generalised theories and approaches for dealing with occupational fraud. Whilst previous authors have offered fraud deterrents in terms of internal controls, they have failed to realise the need to understand their effectiveness for particular forms of fraud. This paper sheds light on the effectiveness of internal controls in achieving their goals. This has both practical applications and stimulates theoretical insights.

show abstract

“…We consider the first research question that worldviews may influence preferences for honesty by comparing selfreports across the spectrum of each worldview dimension. For the hierarchy dimension, the average number of self-reported heads was similar across subjects that hold hierarchical and 6 Evidence on gender differences in honesty when subjects do not interact is mixed, see Muehlheusser et al (2015), Ezquerra et al (2018), Ariely et al (2019). egalitarian views (6.54 vs 6.74; p=0.186).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some find that honesty levels differ (e.g., Cohn et al, 2019;Dieckmann et al, 2016), others fail to detect any significant difference (e.g., Mann et al, 2016;. In contrast to geographical location as a proxy, Ariely et al (2019) uses family background from East Germany as a proxy for exposure for socialism and finds that people brought up under socialism are less honest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%