Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior

By Shaul Shalvi, Jason Dana, Michel J. J. Handgraaf, Carsten K. W. De Dreu. 2011

540 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/165a1d6605306634313b4829467d2442b2f06cf8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Information Systems and Management

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Separating Will from Grace: An experiment on conformity and awareness in cheating (2013, background): “Several other papers have used similar tasks (die roll) to explore the conditions under which individuals lie to gain higher earnings (Fischbacher and Heusi, 2008; Gino and Ariely, 2012; Shalvi et al., 2011).”
The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings (2020, background): “There is evidence that people seek self-serving jus-ti ﬁ cations for unethical behavior (Shalvi et al. 2011) and that these justi ﬁ cations in ﬂ uence cognition and behavior (Shalvi et al. 2015).”
Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty (2012, background): “Generally, this research has found that the more room a situation provides for people to be able to rationalize their behavior, the more likely they are to behave unethically (e.g., Gino & Ariely, 2012; Schweitzer & Hsee, 2002; Shalvi et al., 2011).”
Preferences for Truth‐Telling (2016, background): “…Tobol 2014 * 1 156 Israel die roll 1D6 Ruffle and Tobol 2014 * 1 427 Israel die roll 1D6 Schindler and Pfattheicher 2017 * 2 300 USA coin toss 1D2 Shalvi et al. 2011 * 2 129 USA die roll 1D6 Shalvi 2012 2 178 Netherlands coin toss 20D2 Shalvi et al. 2012 * 4 144 Israel die roll 1D6 Shalvi and…”
Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling (2014, background): “This measure is conditional upon both individual-level data and experimental tasks which do not permit acts of ‘‘incomplete dishonesty’’ (Shalvi et al., 2011) where individuals may cheat, though not necessarily maximally so.”
The Contaminating Effects of Building Instrumental Ties (2014, methodology): “This type of self-serving justification process is commonly used to explain self-interested or even immoral behavior (Snyder et al., 1979; Schweitzer, 2002; Shalvi et al., 2011; Gino and Ariely, 2012).”
Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty (2020, methodology): “Using this paradigm over the congeneric die-paradigm (e.g., Shalvi et al., 2011; Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi, 2013 ) or other related tasks capturing deviant behavior (e.g., Buckenmaier et al., 2019; Dimant, 2019 , for an overview see also Abeler et al., 2019; Gerlach et al., 2019; Köbis et al.,…”
Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from India (2017, background): “See, for example, Gino and Ariely (2012) and Shalvi et al. (2011). uniform distribution.”
Being Honest About Dishonesty: Correlating Self‐Reports and Actual Lying (2014, methodology): “Although results of the die rolls are truly private, lying can be analyzed on the aggregate level comparing the empirical distribution of reported die rolls to the theoretic distribution of an honest die roll (Shalvi et al., 2011).”
Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally (2015, unknown): “People seem to stretch the truth [19], to the point that still allows them to rationalize their behavior [18,20 ,21].”
Laboratory Measure of Cheating Predicts School Misconduct (2018, background): “…is to give subjects a random device (e.g., a die or a coin) that rewards them for particular outcomes, and to ask them to report the actual results (Shalvi et al. 2011; Bucciol and Piovesan 2011; Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi 2013; Cohn et al. 2014; Abeler et al. 2014).1 Because subjects are…”