IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finlet/v58y2023ipbs1544612323007456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does probabilistic harm affect dishonesty? An experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Bahník, Štěpán
  • Vranka, Marek

Abstract

Dishonest actions, while beneficial to perpetrators, can have significant negative effects on financial markets and organizations. The caused harm is, however, often unclear and unpredictable, possibly making dishonesty easier to justify. We conducted an experiment where participants could break a rule for increased rewards, potentially harming a third party. By manipulating the probability of harm while maintaining the size of expected harm constant, we explore how the probability of harm influences dishonesty. Contrary to expectations, our results suggest that the manipulation does not impact the dishonest behavior. These findings underscore the complexity of dishonest behavior in contexts relevant to finance.

Suggested Citation

  • Bahník, Štěpán & Vranka, Marek, 2023. "How does probabilistic harm affect dishonesty? An experiment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PB).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:finlet:v:58:y:2023:i:pb:s1544612323007456
    DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2023.104373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612323007456
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104373?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thielmann, Isabel & Hilbig, Benjamin E., 2019. "No gain without pain: The psychological costs of dishonesty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 126-137.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Cameron, Lisa & Chaudhuri, Ananish & Erkal, Nisvan & Gangadharan, Lata, 2009. "Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: Experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 843-851, August.
    4. Broadstock, David & Chen, Xiaoqi, 2021. "Corporate site visits, private monitoring and fraud: Evidence from China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Klaus Abbink & Bernd Irlenbusch & Elke Renner, 2002. "An Experimental Bribery Game," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 428-454, October.
    6. Eugene Soltes, 2019. "The frequency of corporate misconduct: public enforcement versus private reality," Journal of Financial Crime, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(4), pages 923-937, October.
    7. Bahník, Štěpán & Vranka, Marek A., 2022. "Experimental test of the effects of punishment probability and size on the decision to take a bribe," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Steinel, Wolfgang & Soraperra, Ivan & Shalvi, Shaul, 2019. "Uncertain lies: How payoff uncertainty affects dishonesty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-125.
    9. Klaus Abbink & Danila Serra, 2012. "Chapter 4 Anticorruption Policies: Lessons from the Lab," Research in Experimental Economics, in: New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption, pages 77-115, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Xiong, Jiacai & Ouyang, Caiyue & Tong, Jamie Yixing & Zhang, Feida Frank, 2021. "Fraud commitment in a smaller world: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Abigail Barr & Danila Serra, 2009. "The effects of externalities and framing on bribery in a petty corruption experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 488-503, December.
    12. Erev, I. & Roth, Alvin E., 2014. "Maximization, learning, and economic behavior," Scholarly Articles 30831199, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    13. Lana Friesen, 2012. "Certainty of Punishment versus Severity of Punishment: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 399-421, October.
    14. Kinneret Teodorescu & Ori Plonsky & Shahar Ayal & Rachel Barkan, 2021. "Frequency of enforcement is more important than the severity of punishment in reducing violation behaviors," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(42), pages 2108507118-, October.
    15. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    16. Lana Friesen, 2012. "Certainty of Punishment versus Severity of Punishment: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 399-421, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Armand, Alex & Coutts, Alexander & Vicente, Pedro C. & Vilela, Inês, 2023. "Measuring corruption in the field using behavioral games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    2. Levati, M. Vittoria & Nardi, Chiara, 2023. "Letting third parties who suffer from petty corruption talk: Evidence from a collusive bribery experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Bahník, Štěpán & Vranka, Marek A., 2022. "Experimental test of the effects of punishment probability and size on the decision to take a bribe," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Salmon, Timothy C. & Serra, Danila, 2017. "Corruption, social judgment and culture: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 64-78.
    5. Christoph Engel, 2016. "Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2016_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    6. Jiang, Shuguang & Wei, Qian, 2022. "Confucian culture, moral reminder, and soft corruption," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    7. Abbink, Klaus & Wu, Kevin, 2017. "Reward self-reporting to deter corruption: An experiment on mitigating collusive bribery," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 256-272.
    8. Abbink, Klaus & Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Gangadharan, Lata & Jain, Tarun, 2014. "Letting the briber go free: An experiment on mitigating harassment bribes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 17-28.
    9. Maria Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2019. "The power of words in a petty corruption experiment," Working Papers 18/2019, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    10. Guerra, Alice & Zhuravleva, Tatyana, 2021. "Do bystanders react to bribery?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 442-462.
    11. Armantier, Olivier & Boly, Amadou, 2011. "A controlled field experiment on corruption," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 1072-1082.
    12. Murray, Cameron K. & Frijters, Paul & Vorster, Melissa, 2017. "The back-scratching game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 494-508.
    13. Roee Sarel, 2022. "Crime and punishment in times of pandemics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 155-186, October.
    14. Boly, Amadou & Gillanders, Robert, 2018. "Anti-corruption policy making, discretionary power and institutional quality: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 314-327.
    15. Richard Kasa & Gábor Réthi & György Hauber & Krisztina Szegedi, 2023. "Simulation of Corruption Decisions—An Agent-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Alice Guerra & Tatyana Zhuravleva, 2022. "Do women always behave as corruption cleaners?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 173-192, April.
    17. Ritwik Banerjee, 2016. "On the interpretation of bribery in a laboratory corruption game: moral frames and social norms," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 240-267, March.
    18. Saucedo Cepeda, Abraham, 2024. "An experimental study of auctioneers’ and bidders’ preferences over corruption in auctions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    19. van Veldhuizen, R., 2013. "The influence of wages on public officials’ corruptibility: A laboratory investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 341-356.
    20. Mahsa Akbari & Duman Bahrami‐Rad & Erik O. Kimbrough & Pedro P. Romero & Sadegh Alhosseini, 2020. "An Experimental Study Of Kin And Ethnic Favoritism," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1795-1812, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dishonesty; Bribery; Experiment; Justification;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:eee:finlet:v:58:y:2023:i:pb:s1544612323007456. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/frl .

    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.