Ethical decision making Flashcards
Who shares (split)?
- Females tend to split more
- Contribution matters negatively – so if you bring more in, you tend to split less
- Prize money high
- Best predictor: Promises (only voluntary) good predictor of sharing
Can we (as laymen) ‘read’ people’s intentions? Who / what can predict right and what is used in predicting?
- Females
- Prize amount
- Voluntary promises
What is the best predictor of sharing?
Voluntary promises
What do they underestimate when predicting who shares?
The weigth of important cues
(Dis)honesty in individual settings: Meta-analysis
Honesty is valueble and participant lie to increase their profit only by 20 procent.
Two main theoretical approaches of the function dishonesty
- Economics: Dishonesty is function of the likelihood to get caught and the punishment that follows.
- Psychological: Dishonesty is a function of serving self-interest while maintaining an honest private and public self-image.
o This is the approach that is right if you see the meta-analysis
Type of justifications two?
- Cognitive justifications: Factors that enable people to process and interpret information and situations in a self-serving way.
- Social justifications: Settings in which dishonesty has an additional, social “side effect” that deemed positive.
o This is the one we think about
Dyadic die rolling task: privately roll a die and report the outcome if double → both A & B get the value of the double in money if no double → both A & B get nothing.
B has more power over the game – A can just be honest It doesn’t matter.
Signaling: giving a signal to change from 4 to 5
Collaborative dishonesty
In groups dishonesty is much higher than in individual.
Interventions on dishonesty
Instead of doing it with two persons, you do it with one person and that one rolls the dies two times. Then the dishonesty goes down; reduces cheating.
Get one of the players to have a fixed price money; and the other one has a
Make one of the persons be not rely on rolling a double for money and you also reduce cheating
The strong effect of the first move
If you start with dishonesty in the first round the dishonesty is very high
If you do not start with dishonesty in the first round the dishonesty is not that high
So, if you start with dishonesty or honesty that has a strong effect on the outcome of the came and how it proceeds
Ethical free riding
We expect that people that are honest seek a honest partner, or free ride their partners dishonesty?
- If a honest first mover that works with a dishonest mover does not want to switch that is ethical free riding.
How do people select partners?
We expect that people that are dishonest seek also dishonest partners.
We expect that people that are honest seek a honest partner, or free ride their partners dishonesty?
Switching partners: the percentage of people that lied at least once in a block
- Both liars do not want to switch
- If a honest first mover that works with a dishonest mover does not want to switch that is ethical free riding.
- The profit of having a fully dishonest compared with a fully honest partner is higher dishonesty premium.
- The second mover is dishonest they don’t switch that much when they have a honest partner, because they have the power in the situation.
People tend to choose ….. over …..
collaboration over honesty
Collaborative settings provide…?
strong justification for lying
Removing/reducing one group members incentive to lie ….. lying
reduces
The way an interaction starts has a ….. impact on the overall levels of dishonesty
strong
……. members prefer to interact with ……. partners ….
dishonest; honest
Both honest and dishonest
dishonest
who can maximize their profits.
What is the difference betwee ambiguity and ethical free riding?
With ethical free riding the more numbers of doubles they have the fewer they want to switch partners.
With ambiguity the more mumbers of doubles they have the more they want to switch partners.
* Because the partner most likely is cheating.
