Abstract
AbstractTrivial acts of dishonesty are very prevalent in everyday life and have severe economic and societal consequences. The present study aims to examine the role of descriptive and injunctive norms in minor and major dishonesty under ambiguity. We devised a novel experimental design in which rule violations can be the result of honest mistakes or various dishonest processes. In this ambiguous context, we observed a high prevalence of minor rule violations at baseline. In two experiments, exposure to increased peer cheating (i.e., negative descriptive norms) promoted major rule violations, whereas the presence of explicit or subtle rule reminders (i.e., injunctive norms) marginally reduced minor rule violations but had no impact on major rule violations. We interpret these findings within the framework of social norm theory, self‐maintenance theory, and bounded ethicality. Implications regarding policies that target ordinary unethical behavior are discussed.
Highlights
John and Paul are just hired in the public sector of a developing country
Everyday life is full of examples where morally ambiguous contexts lead to trivial acts of dishonesty that range from cheating on one's taxes to minor academic dishonesty and petty institutional corruption (Mazar & Ariely, 2006)
Among the participants who violated the prescribed rule in both studies, we observed a dominant pattern of minor rule violations as participants opted for only one extra point despite the possibility to ask for up to five points
Summary
John and Paul are just hired in the public sector of a developing country. In this country, public officials are usually underpaid, and this has led to a debate over whether minor bribes are expected and morally justified. Similar to this situation, everyday life is full of examples where morally ambiguous contexts lead to trivial acts of dishonesty that range from cheating on one's taxes to minor academic dishonesty and petty institutional corruption (Mazar & Ariely, 2006). Everyday life is full of examples where morally ambiguous contexts lead to trivial acts of dishonesty that range from cheating on one's taxes to minor academic dishonesty and petty institutional corruption (Mazar & Ariely, 2006) Despite their seemingly innocuous nature, these minor acts of dishonesty are highly prevalent and have devastating consequences for institutions and societies (DePaulo, Kirkendol, Kashy, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; Mazar & Ariely, 2006). Given that real-life dishonesty does not take place in a social vacuum and can be embedded in ambiguous contexts, the present study focuses on the potential effects of social norms on the extent of dishonesty in a highly ambiguous context
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
