[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp620.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Perspective on Unethical Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Amos Schurr
  • Ilana Ritov
  • Yaakov Kareev
  • Judith Avrahami
Abstract
In two experiments, we explored how the perspective through which individuals view their decisions influences their moral behavior. To do this we employed a computerized “Is that the answer you had in mind?” trivial-pursuit style game. The game challenges individuals’ integrity because cheating during play cannot be detected. Perspective, whether local or global, was manipulated: In Experiment 1 the choice procedure was used to evoke a local or an integrative perspective of one’s choices, whereas in Experiment 2, perspective was manipulated through priming. Across all the experiments, we observed that when given an incentive to cheat, the adoption of a local perspective increased cheating, as evidenced by overall higher reported success rates. These findings have clear implications for explaining and controlling behavior in other situations (e.g., exercising, dieting) in which the perspective one takes is a matter of choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "The Effect of Perspective on Unethical Behavior," Discussion Paper Series dp620, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp620.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2005. "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    3. Mead, N.L. & Baumeister, R.F. & Gino, F. & Schweitzer, M.E. & Ariely, D., 2009. "Too tired to tell the truth : Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty," Other publications TiSEM c60167a3-c3aa-4b83-9192-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    5. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liora Zimerman & Shaul Shalvi & Yoella Bereby-Meyer, 2014. "Self-reported ethical risk taking tendencies predict actual dishonesty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 58-64, January.
    2. Shaul Shalvi, 2012. "Dishonestly increasing the likelihood of winning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 292-303, May.
    3. Kanze, Dana & Conley, Mark A. & Higgins, E. Tory, 2021. "The motivation of mission statements: How regulatory mode influences workplace discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 84-103.
    4. Shalvi, Shaul & Leiser, David, 2013. "Moral firmness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 400-407.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:58-64 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:292-303 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuval Feldman & Eliran Halali, 2019. "Regulating “Good” People in Subtle Conflicts of Interest Situations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 65-83, January.
    2. Milkman, Katherine L., 2012. "Unsure what the future will bring? You may overindulge: Uncertainty increases the appeal of wants over shoulds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 163-176.
    3. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    4. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    5. Francesca Gino & Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "License to Cheat: Voluntary Regulation and Ethical Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2187-2203, October.
    6. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    7. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
    8. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    9. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    10. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    11. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    12. Rixom, Jessica & Mishra, Himanshu, 2014. "Ethical ends: Effect of abstract mindsets in ethical decisions for the greater social good," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 110-121.
    13. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    14. Zamir Eyal, 2020. "Refounding Law and Economics: Behavioral Support for the Predictions of Standard Economic Analysis," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-35, July.
    15. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    16. Dolan, Paul & Galizzi, Matteo M., 2015. "Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-16.
    17. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "Is that the answer you had in mind? The effect of perspective on unethical behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 679-688, November.
    18. Hasan, Tahseen & John, Kose & Teng, Haimeng & Wu, Qiang, 2024. "Creative corporate culture and corporate tax avoidance," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3).
    19. Corgnet, Brice & Martin, Ludivine & Ndodjang, Peguy & Sutan, Angela, 2019. "On the merit of equal pay: Performance manipulation and incentive setting," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 23-45.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:199-206 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:679-688 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Rosenbaum, Stephen Mark & Billinger, Stephan & Stieglitz, Nils, 2014. "Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 181-196.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp620. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.