Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty

In two studies, we tested the power of revenge as a justification mechanism that enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral behavior, as well as the physiological arousal ass...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Dar Peleg, Guy Hochman, Timothy Levine, Yechiel Klar, Shahar Ayal
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Society for Judgment and Decision Making 2021
Materias:	retaliation ultimatum game dictator game cheating behavior justifications lie detectornakeywords Social Sciences H Psychology BF1-990
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6011f08a60824ab88ec721aa55d8279b
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6011f08a60824ab88ec721aa55d8279b
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6011f08a60824ab88ec721aa55d8279b2021-11-29T22:45:18ZRevenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty1930-2975https://doaj.org/article/6011f08a60824ab88ec721aa55d8279b2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttp://journal.sjdm.org/20/201117/jdm201117.pdfhttps://doaj.org/toc/1930-2975In two studies, we tested the power of revenge as a justification mechanism that enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated with it. To this end, we employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase, participants played one round of a bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study 1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in which we manipulated whether the players had been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the second phase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gain at the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participants also took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the second phase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated that the opponent's dishonesty was a stronger driver than the opponent's unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, the physiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (and not just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating the offender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.Dar PelegGuy HochmanTimothy LevineYechiel KlarShahar AyalSociety for Judgment and Decision Makingarticleretaliation ultimatum game dictator game cheating behavior justifications lie detectornakeywordsSocial SciencesHPsychologyBF1-990ENJudgment and Decision Making, Vol 16, Iss 6, Pp 1525-1548 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	retaliation ultimatum game dictator game cheating behavior justifications lie detectornakeywords Social Sciences H Psychology BF1-990
spellingShingle	retaliation ultimatum game dictator game cheating behavior justifications lie detectornakeywords Social Sciences H Psychology BF1-990 Dar Peleg Guy Hochman Timothy Levine Yechiel Klar Shahar Ayal Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
description	In two studies, we tested the power of revenge as a justification mechanism that enables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored the effects of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on their subsequent moral behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated with it. To this end, we employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase, participants played one round of a bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study 1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in which we manipulated whether the players had been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the second phase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gain at the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participants also took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the second phase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated that the opponent's dishonesty was a stronger driver than the opponent's unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, the physiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (and not just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating the offender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.
format	article
author	Dar Peleg Guy Hochman Timothy Levine Yechiel Klar Shahar Ayal
author_facet	Dar Peleg Guy Hochman Timothy Levine Yechiel Klar Shahar Ayal
author_sort	Dar Peleg
title	Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
title_short	Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
title_full	Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
title_fullStr	Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
title_full_unstemmed	Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
title_sort	revenge is not blind: testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty
publisher	Society for Judgment and Decision Making
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/6011f08a60824ab88ec721aa55d8279b
work_keys_str_mv	AT darpeleg revengeisnotblindtestingtheabilityofretributiontojustifydishonesty AT guyhochman revengeisnotblindtestingtheabilityofretributiontojustifydishonesty AT timothylevine revengeisnotblindtestingtheabilityofretributiontojustifydishonesty AT yechielklar revengeisnotblindtestingtheabilityofretributiontojustifydishonesty AT shaharayal revengeisnotblindtestingtheabilityofretributiontojustifydishonesty
_version_	1718406866905595904

Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty

Ejemplares similares