IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/arp/tjssrr/2018p271-275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Thinking Underlying Cross-Cultural Differences in Deception Acceptability

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Castro*

    (Cognitive Science Laboratory Department of Psychology Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Mexico)

  • Guadalupe Elizabeth Morales

    (Cognitive Science Laboratory Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la educación (IISUE) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico)

  • Ernesto Octavio Lopez

    (Cognitive Science Laboratory Department of Psychology Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Mexico)

  • Laura Olivares

    (Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology University of Salamanca, Spain)

  • Jaume Masip

    (Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology University of Salamanca, Spain)

Abstract

This study aims to explore cultural differences between Spanish and Mexican individuals in how specific cognitive-based thinking explains judgment formation regarding deception acceptability. Here, participants from both populations were required to judge acceptability of actors´ lying and truth-telling tendencies across several social scenarios. These deception scenarios were built by considering experimental manipulation of the type of relationship with the deceiver, gender, motive, and deception consequences. Analysis results indicate that judgment formation of acceptability in both populations followed a cognitive summative rule to integrate factor information valuation. However, when considering valuation of telling lies to an unknown individual, acceptability was significantly different for the two populations. Spanish individuals viewed lying to an unknown individual significantly more acceptable than did Mexican participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Castro* & Guadalupe Elizabeth Morales & Ernesto Octavio Lopez & Laura Olivares & Jaume Masip, 2018. "Systematic Thinking Underlying Cross-Cultural Differences in Deception Acceptability," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 4(11), pages 271-275, 11-2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:arp:tjssrr:2018:p:271-275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.arpgweb.com/pdf-files/jssr4(11)271-275.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.arpgweb.com/journal/7/archive/11-2018/11/4
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Cherry, 2006. "The Impact of Normative Influence and Locus of Control on Ethical Judgments and Intentions: a Cross-Cultural Comparison," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 113-132, 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. Natalia M. Mintchik & Timothy A. Farmer, 2009. "Associations Between Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Reasoning: Evidence from Accounting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 259-275, January.
    2. Syahrul Ahmar Ahmad Author_Email: syahrul.ahmar@johor.uitm.edu.my & Malcolm Smith & Zubaidah Ismail & Rahimah Mohamed Yunos, 2011. "Internal Whistleblowing Intentions: Influence Of Internal Auditors’ Demographic And Individual Factors," Annual Summit on Business and Entrepreneurial Studies (ASBES 2011) Proceeding 2011-051-155, Conference Master Resources.
    3. Peter Mudrack & E. Mason, 2013. "Dilemmas, Conspiracies, and Sophie’s Choice: Vignette Themes and Ethical Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 639-653, December.
    4. Barbara Culiberg & Domen Bajde, 2014. "Do You Need a Receipt? Exploring Consumer Participation in Consumption Tax Evasion as an Ethical Dilemma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 271-282, October.
    5. Nadzri Ab Ghani & Jeremy Galbreath & Robert Evans, 2012. "Predicting Whistle-Blowing Intention Among Supervisors In Malaysia," Journal of Global Management, Global Research Agency, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Siu, Wai-sum, 2008. "Yuan and marketing: The perception of Chinese owner-managers," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 449-462, October.
    7. Connie R. Bateman & Sean R. Valentine, 2021. "Consumers’ Personality Characteristics, Judgment of Salesperson Ethical Treatment, and Nature of Purchase Involvement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(2), pages 309-331, March.
    8. Peter Mudrack & E. Mason, 2013. "Ethical Judgments: What Do We Know, Where Do We Go?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 575-597, July.
    9. Christine Henle & Charlie Reeve & Virginia Pitts, 2010. "Stealing Time at Work: Attitudes, Social Pressure, and Perceived Control as Predictors of Time Theft," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 53-67, June.
    10. Ruiz-Palomino, Pablo & Bañón-Gomis, Alexis, 2017. "The negative impact of chameleon-inducing personalities on employees' ethical work intentions: The mediating role of Machiavellianism," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 102-115.
    11. Dennis Hwang & Blair Staley & Ying Te Chen & Jyh-Shan Lan, 2008. "Confucian culture and whistle-blowing by professional accountants: an exploratory study," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(5), pages 504-526, May.
    12. W. Robert Knechel & Natalia Mintchik, 2022. "Do Personal Beliefs and Values Affect an Individual’s “Fraud Tolerance”? Evidence from the World Values Survey," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 463-489, May.
    13. Cheng-Li Huang & Ju-Lan Tsai, 2015. "Managerial Morality and Philanthropic Decision-Making: A Test of an Agency Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(4), pages 795-811, December.
    14. Toti, Jean-François & Diallo, Mbaye Fall & Huaman-Ramirez, Richard, 2021. "Ethical sensitivity in consumers’ decision-making: The mediating and moderating role of internal locus of control," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 168-182.

    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:arp:tjssrr:2018:p:271-275. 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: Managing Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=7&info=aims .

    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.