On the robustness of the association between Honesty-Humility and dishonest behavior for varying incentives

Previous research consistently showed a negative link between Honesty-Humility (HH) and dishonest behavior. However, most prior research neglected the influence of situational factors and their potential interaction with HH. In two incentivized experiments (N = 322, N = 552), we thus tested whether the (subjective) utility of incentives moderates the HH-dishonesty link. Replicating prior evidence, HH showed a consistent negative link to dishonesty. However, the utility of incentives did not moderate this association, neither when manipulated through incentive size (BF₀₁ = 5.7) nor when manipulated through gain versus loss framing (BF₀₁ = 20.4). These results demonstrate the robustness of the HH-dishonesty link.     

Moral in whose eyes? Cross-cultural differences in moral decision making and behaviour

All people want to feel that they are morally adequate. People tend to evaluate their moral adequacy by judging their behaviour through their own eyes (first-person perspective) or the eyes of others (third-person perspective). People in all cultures use both perspectives, but there may be cultural variations in which perspective takes precedence. By conducting two studies, we explore the way people in face cultures are more likely to secure their moral self-regard through the eyes of others (vs. their own eyes), whereas the opposite is true in case of people from dignity cultures. Study 1 found that people from face culture (Korean participants) cheated to a lesser extent when others were invoked (vs. not invoked), but people from dignity culture (American participants) were not affected by this priming. Study 2 found that moral intentions were more strongly influenced by what participants perceived others to do in moral situations in face (vs. dignity) cultures. In contrast, moral intentions were found to be more strongly influenced by what they believed they should do in moral situations in dignity (vs. face) cultures.     

Plagiarism: Words and Ideas

Plagiarism is a crime against academy. It deceives readers, hurts plagiarized authors, and gets the plagiarist undeserved benefits. However, even though these arguments do show that copying other people's intellectual contribution is wrong, they do not apply to the copying of words. Copying a few sentences that contain no original idea (e.g. in the introduction) is of marginal importance compared to stealing the ideas of others. The two must be clearly distinguished, and the 'plagiarism' label should not be used for deeds which are very different in nature and importance.     

The relationship between cheating behavior and sensation-seeking

Academic dishonesty is a problem in academia and cheating is a problem in society at large. Sensation-seeking was proposed as a personality trait that is positively related to one’s likelihood to cheat. A sample of 105 undergraduates participated in a research activity for course credit where cheating on a trivia game to win a cash prize by taking answers from a sealed folder was an option. As anticipated, sensation-seeking predicted cheating. Consistent with previous research, males were also more likely to cheat than females. Targeted interventions are suggested as a possible remedy.     

Did Armstrong Cheat?

In this paper, I explore the idea that under one way of understanding cheating, Armstrong did not fulfill any of the three necessary conditions: (1) that cheating violates a rule—I will make the case that though doping was against the official rules, it was not against the rules the athletes used; (2) that it is cheating if the intent is to obtain an unfair advantage—I will argue that dopers were not attempting to obtain an unfair advantage, at least on one plausible understanding of fairness; and (3) that cheating requires fair enforcement of the rules—I will show that the official rules against doping were hardly enforced at all, much less fairly enforced, and thus lacked enough sufficient normative force to deem breaking them cheating.     

Discovery of a Partner Affair and Major Depressive Episode in a Probability Sample of Married or Cohabiting Adults

Prior research has found that humiliating marital events are associated with depression. Building on this research, the current study investigated the association between one specific humiliating marital event—discovering that one's partner had an affair—and past‐year major depressive episode (MDE) in a probability sample of married or cohabiting men and women who were at high risk for depression based on the criterion that they scored below the midpoint on a measure of marital satisfaction (N = 227). Results indicate that (i) women were more likely than men to report discovering their partner had an affair in the prior 12 months; (ii) discovering a partner affair was associated with a higher prevalence of past‐year MDE and a lower level of marital adjustment; and (iii) the association between discovering a partner affair and MDE remained statistically significant when holding constant demographic variables and marital adjustment. These results support continued investigation into the impact that finding out about an affair has on the mental health of the person discovering a partner affair.     

Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards and compromises moral decisions

Previous research suggests people firmly value moral standards. However, research has also shown that various factors can compromise moral behavior. Inspired by the recent financial turmoil, we investigate whether financial deprivation might shift people’s moral standards and consequently compromise their moral decisions. Across one pilot survey and five experiments, we find that people believe financial deprivation should not excuse immoral conduct; yet when people actually experience deprivation they seem to apply their moral standards more leniently. Thus, people who feel deprived tend to cheat more for financial gains and judge deprived moral offenders who cheat for financial gains less harshly. These effects are mediated by shifts in people’s moral standards: beliefs in whether deprivation is an acceptable reason for immorality. The effect of deprivation on immoral conduct diminishes when it is explicit that immoral conduct cannot help alleviate imbalances in deprived actors’ financial states, when financial deprivation seems fair or deserved, and when acting immorally seems unfair.