When foul play seems fair: Exploring the link between just deserts and honesty

Galeotti, Fabio; Kline, Reuben; Orsini, Raimondello

doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.08.007

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they do not find any such unethical spill overs of affirmative action. The findings of Galeotti et al (2017), Houser et al (2012), and Maggian and Montinari (2017) connect to results from the sabotage literature (see, for instance, Fehr (2018)); if procedures are perceived as unfair, antisocial behavior is likely to be more frequent and Banerjee et al (2018); who document that affirmative action does not increase antisocial behavior).…”

Section: Dishonesty In the Absence Of Strategic Motivessupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Similar to Kocher et al (2018), groups are more likely to under report income, with the risk of being detected playing a large role in explaining behavior. Galeotti et al (2017) study in detail whether norms and perceptions about dishonesty influence whether individuals feel justified in being dishonest. They find that the violation of the "just deserts" norm, that is, the notion that one gets what one deserves, results in a greater propensity toward dishonesty.…”

Section: Dishonesty In the Absence Of Strategic Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antisocial Behavior in the Workplace

Gangadharan¹,

Grossman²,

Vecci³

2020

Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antisocial behavior within the workplace can have adverse consequences on worker and firm productivity. Despite their potentially large costs, antisocial activities are rarely directly observable or recorded, making field studies on this topic relatively uncommon. This chapter presents the commonly used experimental methods to investigate workplace relevant antisocial behavior, the costs of such behavior, and possible explanations for its existence. Section "Sabotage" reviews the laboratory experimental methods that have been employed to

show abstract

Section: Dishonesty In the Absence Of Strategic Motivessupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Dishonesty In the Absence Of Strategic Motivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antisocial Behavior in the Workplace

Gangadharan¹,

Grossman²,

Vecci³

2020

Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early experimental evidence from psychology indicate that paying subjects less than what they were told to expect leads to more cheating (Greenberg, 1990). Similarly, recent work finds more cheating when earnings are below the expectations set by distributional norms (Galeotti et al, 2017). Beyond expectations, studies also suggest that inequities in earnings can affect the level of cheating.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional inequality and individual preferences for honesty and generosity

Birkelund

Cherry

2020

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on an experiment that investigates how inequality in advantage affects individual preferences for honesty and generosity. In a two-stage experiment, subjects first earn money according to self-reported production, which can include honest and dishonest reports. Subjects then play the dictator game and decide how much, if any, of their earnings to share with an anonymous recipient. Treatments investigate how equal and unequal advantages in production affect the extent of cheating in stage one and the subsequent offers in stage two. When advantage randomly benefits only some of the group, the relatively disadvantaged are significantly more dishonest and exhibit significantly less other-regarding behavior. Considering the interplay between cheating and giving, we find that greater cheating was followed with greater giving. And comparing this relationship across treatments suggests self-justification for dishonest behavior makes subjects feel more entitled to their illgotten gains.

show abstract

“…Gino and Pierce (2009) link honest and dishonest behaviors to financial self-interest and equity concerns. Galeotti et al (2017) analyze experimentally the norm that "one gets what one deserves" on honesty in a design where dishonesty entails income redistribution. The authors find a link between norm violation and the propensity toward dishonesty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%