To be or not to be trusted: The influence of media richness on defection and deception

Rockmann, Kevin W.; Northcraft, Gregory B.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.002

Cited by 136 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The honesty-promoting quality of FTF interaction has primarily been explained as a result of its communication richness relative to other forms of interaction (e.g., Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012). However, others have argued that FTF interaction might activate more moral concerns than alternate forms of communication (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2008). Though evidence has supported the former account, to our knowledge no research has provided an adequate test of the latter account of FTF interaction's honesty-promoting virtues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Face-to-face (FTF) interaction promotes a host of social benefits relative to anonymous interactions, including increased honesty (Citera, Beauregard, & Mitsuya, 2005;Rockmann & Northcraft, 2008;Valley, Moag, & Bazerman, 1998). The honesty-promoting quality of FTF interaction has primarily been explained as a result of its communication richness relative to other forms of interaction (e.g., Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors are critical for the development of rapport (i.e., mutual liking and positive feelings towards others) and cooperation (Drolet & Morris, 2000;McGinn, Milkman, & Nöth, 2012;Morris, Nadler, Kurtzberg, & Thompson, 2002;Sally, 1995;Swaab, Postmes, van Beest, & Spears, 2007), each of which should reduce the likelihood of deception (Rockmann & Northcraft, 2008). In addition to promoting rapport, FTF interaction also increases the risk of deception-signaling nonverbal cues leaking in the face of persistent questioning (Buller & Burgoon, 1996;Valley et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

“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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“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

“…In public goods dilemmas, individuals can cooperate by contributing private resources to produce the public good, but they can also defect by not contributing toward the public good (Zeng & Chen, 2003). In addition to the temptation to under-contribute toward the public good, individuals more often under-contribute defensively (McCarter, Rockmann, & Northcraft, 2010): they fear that others will free ride on their contributions (Rockmann & Northcraft, 2008). Consequently individuals contribute more toward the public good when they know that others are also contributing (Fischbacher et al, 2001).…”

Section: Social Dilemmas: a Brief Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%