Spot on for liars! How public scrutiny influences ethical behavior

We examine whether people are more honest in public than in private. In a laboratory experiment, we have subjects roll dice and report outcomes either in public or in private. Higher reports yield more money and lies cannot be detected. We also elicit subjects' ethical mindsets and their expect...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 12; no. 7; p. e0181682
Main Authors Ostermaier, Andreas, Uhl, Matthias
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 17.07.2017
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Analysis of Variance
Behavior
Biology and Life Sciences
Computer and Information Sciences
Deception
Decision making
Encyclopedias
Ethical standards
Ethics
Experiments
Female
Honesty
Human behavior
Humans
Interpersonal Relations
Laboratories
Male
Medical ethics
Norms
Open access publishing
Psychological Tests
Psychology
Research and Analysis Methods
Social aspects
Social Behavior
Social Sciences
Theory
Thinking
Young Adult
Germany
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:We examine whether people are more honest in public than in private. In a laboratory experiment, we have subjects roll dice and report outcomes either in public or in private. Higher reports yield more money and lies cannot be detected. We also elicit subjects' ethical mindsets and their expectations about others' reports. We find that outcome-minded subjects lie less in public to conform with their expectations about others' reports. Ironically, these expectations are false. Rule-minded subjects, in turn, do not respond to public scrutiny. These findings challenge the common faith in public scrutiny to promote ethical behavior. While public scrutiny eventually increases honesty, this effect is contingent on people's mindsets and expectations.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0181682