IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v75y2019ipas0167487018303076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting REVISE: (Re)Testing unique and combined effects of REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Schild, Christoph
  • Heck, Daniel W.
  • Ścigała, Karolina A.
  • Zettler, Ingo

Abstract

Dishonest behavior poses a crucial threat to individuals and societies at large. To highlight situation factors that potentially reduce the occurrence and/or extent of dishonesty, Ayal, Gino, Barkan, and Ariely (2015) introduced the REVISE framework, consisting of three principles: REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement. The evidence that the three REVISE principles actually reduce dishonesty is not always strong and sometimes even inconsistent, however. We herein thus conceptually replicate three suggested manipulations, each serving as an operationalization of one principle. In a large study with eight conditions and 5,039 participants, we link the REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations to dishonesty, compare their effectiveness with each other, and test for potential interactions between them. Overall, we find that VIsibilty (in terms of overtly monitoring responses) and SElf-engagement (in terms of retyping an honesty statement) reduce dishonest behavior. We find no support for the effectiveness of REminding (in terms of ethical priming) or for any interaction between the REVISE principles. We also report two preregistered manipulation-check studies and discuss policy implications of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Schild, Christoph & Heck, Daniel W. & Ścigała, Karolina A. & Zettler, Ingo, 2019. "Revisiting REVISE: (Re)Testing unique and combined effects of REminding, VIsibility, and SElf-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:75:y:2019:i:pa:s0167487018303076
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487018303076
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2019.04.001?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. Lewis, Alan & Bardis, Alexander & Flint, Chloe & Mason, Claire & Smith, Natalya & Tickle, Charlotte & Zinser, Jennifer, 2012. "Drawing the line somewhere: An experimental study of moral compromise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 718-725.
    2. Slemrod, Joel & Blumenthal, Marsha & Christian, Charles, 2001. "Taxpayer response to an increased probability of audit: evidence from a controlled experiment in Minnesota," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 455-483, March.
    3. Rahwan, Zoe & Hauser, Oliver P. & Kochanowska, Ewa & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "High stakes: A little more cheating, a lot less charity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 276-295.
    4. Jiang, Ting, 2013. "Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 328-336.
    5. repec:feb:natura:0059 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Uri Gneezy & Agne Kajackaite & Joel Sobel, 2018. "Lying Aversion and the Size of the Lie," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 419-453, February.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:356-371 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Gerald J. Pruckner & Rupert Sausgruber, 2013. "Honesty On The Streets: A Field Study On Newspaper Purchasing," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 661-679, June.
    9. Conrads, Julian & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rilke, Rainer Michael & Walkowitz, Gari, 2013. "Lying and team incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-7.
    10. Melissa Bateson & Daniel Nettle & Gilbert Roberts, 2006. "Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting," Natural Field Experiments 00214, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Benjamin A. Olken, 2007. "Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(2), pages 200-249.
    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. Sorravich Kingsuwankul & Chloe Tergiman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Why do oaths work? Image concerns and credibility in promise keeping," Working Papers hal-04209489, HAL.
    2. Cagala, Tobias & Glogowsky, Ulrich & Rincke, Johannes & Schudy, Simeon, 2024. "Commitment requests do not affect truth-telling in laboratory and online experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 179-190.
    3. Lilleholt, Lau & Schild, Christoph & Zettler, Ingo, 2020. "Not all computerized cheating tasks are equal: A comparison of computerized and non-computerized versions of a cheating task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Ayal, Shahar & Celse, Jérémy & Hochman, Guy, 2021. "Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: A field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 9-19.
    5. Prochazka, Jakub & Fedoseeva, Yulia & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "A field experiment on dishonesty: A registered replication of Azar et al. (2013)," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Lauren Hersch Nicholas & Kenneth M. Langa & Scott D. Halpern & Mario Macis, 2024. "How do surrogates make treatment decisions for patients with dementia: An experimental survey study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1211-1228, June.
    7. Huynh, Luu Duc Toan & Stratmann, Philipp & Rilke, Rainer Michael, 2024. "No influence of simple moral awareness cues on cheating behaviour in an online experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    8. Luka Koning & Marianne Junger & Joris Hoof, 2020. "Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(2), pages 257-285, November.

    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. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    2. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    3. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    4. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim & Marie Claire Villeval, 2016. "Loss Aversion and lying behavior: Theory, estimation and empirical evidence," Working Papers halshs-01404333, HAL.
    5. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim & Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Post-Print halshs-01981542, HAL.
    6. Billur Aksoy & Marco A. Palma, "undated". "The Effects of Scarcity on Cheating and In-Group Favoritism," Working Papers 20180918-001, Texas A&M University, Department of Economics.
    7. Rosenbaum, Stephen Mark & Billinger, Stephan & Stieglitz, Nils, 2014. "Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 181-196.
    8. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    9. Radu, Vranceanu & Delphine, Dubart, 2019. "Experimental evidence on deceitful communication: does everyone have a price ?," ESSEC Working Papers WP1806, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    10. Zhixin Dai & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2018. "Cheating in the Lab Predicts Fraud in the Field: An Experiment in Public Transportation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1081-1100, March.
    11. Michailidou, Georgia & Rotondi, Valentina, 2019. "I'd lie for you," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 181-192.
    12. Claire Mouminoux, 2023. "Can misfortune lead to dishonesty?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 35(3), pages 293-310, August.
    13. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2020. "Profession and deception: Experimental evidence on lying behavior among business and medical students," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 175-187.
    14. Parra, Daniel, 2024. "Eliciting dishonesty in online experiments: The observed vs. mind cheating game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Vranceanu, Radu & Dubart, Delphine, 2019. "Deceitful communication in a sender-receiver experiment: Does everyone have a price?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 43-52.
    17. Georgia Michailidou & Hande Erkut, 2022. "Lie O'Clock: Experimental Evidence on Intertemporal Lying Preferences," Working Papers 20220076, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Apr 2022.
    18. Tobias Beck & Christoph Bühren & Björn Frank & Elina Khachatryan, 2020. "Can Honesty Oaths, Peer Interaction, or Monitoring Mitigate Lying?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 467-484, May.
    19. Bernd Irlenbusch & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Behavioral ethics: how psychology influenced economics and how economics might inform psychology?," Post-Print halshs-01159696, HAL.
    20. Sanjit Dhami, 2017. "Human Ethics and Virtues: Rethinking the Homo-Economicus Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 6836, CESifo.

    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:joepsy:v:75:y:2019:i:pa:s0167487018303076. 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/joep .

    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.