IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v152y2019icp122-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deception as competence: The effect of occupational stereotypes on the perception and proliferation of deception

Author

Listed:
  • Gunia, Brian C.
  • Levine, Emma E.

Abstract

Deception is common but widely condemned. The current research examines why. Integrating theories of selling, stereotypes, and negotiation—and challenging much research and rhetoric on deception—we document that perceivers do not always disapprove of deceivers. Instead, they conclude that deceivers will be competent in certain occupations: those in which a selling orientation (SO) is stereotypically seen as integral to the job. We first introduce SO as an occupational stereotype and distinguish between occupations stereotyped as high vs. low in SO (HISO vs. LISO). We then demonstrate (across six studies; two preregistered; total N = 1584) that deception is perceived to signal a person’s ability to engage in SO, and thus their competence in HISO occupations. Finally, we show that this perception may lead to the hiring of deceptive individuals. These results identify occupations as a moderator of deception-related reactions, helping to explain persistent deception and highlight possible interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gunia, Brian C. & Levine, Emma E., 2019. "Deception as competence: The effect of occupational stereotypes on the perception and proliferation of deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 122-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:152:y:2019:i:c:p:122-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597816306586
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.02.003?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. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    2. Alain Cohn & Ernst Fehr & Michel André Maréchal, 2014. "Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry," Nature, Nature, vol. 516(7529), pages 86-89, December.
    3. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    4. Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    5. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    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. Stiegert, Peer & Täuber, Susanne & Leliveld, Marijke C. & Oehmichen, Jana, 2021. "The stereotype rub-off effect – Organizational stereotypes modulate behavioural expectations, expectancy violation and punishment after transgressions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 127-138.
    2. Vranka, Marek & Hudík, Marek & Frollová, Nikola & Bahník, Štěpán & Sýkorová, Markéta & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "Honesty of online workers: A field experiment shows no evidence of self-selection of cheaters to a cheating-enabling work environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Kang, Polly & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Emotional Deception in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Levine, Emma E. & Wald, Kristina A., 2020. "Fibbing about your feelings: How feigning happiness in the face of personal hardship affects trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 135-154.
    5. Sherwood, Charles, 2022. "A lie is a lie: the ethics of lying in business negotiations," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113331, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Lupoli, Matthew J. & Levine, Emma E. & Greenberg, Adam Eric, 2018. "Paternalistic lies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-50.
    2. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    3. Joseph P. Gaspar & Redona Methasani & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2022. "Emotional Intelligence and Deception: A Theoretical Model and Propositions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 567-584, May.
    4. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    5. Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2013. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 239-247.
    6. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Oechssler, Jörg & Shah, Anwar, 2014. "Hierarchy, coercion, and exploitation: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 155-168.
    7. Ferreira, Mark, 2017. "When knowledge is not power: Asymmetric information, probabilistic deceit detection and threats in ultimatum bargainingAuthor-Name: Chavanne, David," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 4-17.
    8. Minson, Julia A. & VanEpps, Eric M. & Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-93.
    9. Xiao, Erte, 2013. "Profit-seeking punishment corrupts norm obedience," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 321-344.
    10. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. Charness, Gary & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Promises & Partnership," Research Papers in Economics 2003:3, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    12. Haimanti Bhattacharya & Subhasish Dugar, 2020. "The Hidden Cost Of Bargaining: Evidence From A Cheating‐Prone Marketplace," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1253-1280, August.
    13. Damien Besancenot & Delphine Dubart & Radu Vranceanu, 2012. "The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information," CEPN Working Papers hal-00692139, HAL.
    14. Kriss, Peter H. & Nagel, Rosemarie & Weber, Roberto A., 2013. "Implicit vs. explicit deception in ultimatum games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-346.
    15. Kang, Polly & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Emotional Deception in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Jung, Seeun & Vranceanu, Radu, 2015. "Experimental Evidence on Gender Interaction in Lying Behavior," ESSEC Working Papers WP1514, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    17. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    18. Sanjiv Erat & Uri Gneezy, 2012. "White Lies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 723-733, April.
    19. repec:hal:journl:hal-00692139 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Adrian de Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Credible Deviations and ACDC," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-153/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    21. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "White lies in tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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:jobhdp:v:152:y:2019:i:c:p:122-137. 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/obhdp .

    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.