Who lies? A large-scale reanalysis linking basic personality traits to unethical decision making


Heck, Daniel W. ; Thielmann, Isabel ; Moshagen, Morten ; Hilbig, Benjamin E.



URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18322/jdm18322.pdf
Weitere URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18322/jdm18322.html
Dokumenttyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
Erscheinungsjahr: 2018
Titel einer Zeitschrift oder einer Reihe: Judgment and Decision Making
Band/Volume: 13
Heft/Issue: 4
Seitenbereich: 356-371
Ort der Veröffentlichung: Berwyn
Verlag: Soc. for Judgment and Decision Making
ISSN: 1930-2975
Verwandte URLs:
Sprache der Veröffentlichung: Englisch
Einrichtung: Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften > Kognitive Psychologie u. Differentielle Psychologie (Erdfelder 2002-2019)
Fachgebiet: 150 Psychologie
Abstract: Previous research has established that higher levels of trait Honesty-Humility (HH) are associated with less dishonest behavior in cheating paradigms. However, only imprecise effect size estimates of this HH-cheating link are available. Moreover, evidence is inconclusive on whether other basic personality traits from the HEXACO or Big Five models are associated with unethical decision making and whether such effects have incremental validity beyond HH. We address these issues in a highly powered reanalysis of 16 studies assessing dishonest behavior in an incentivized, one-shot cheating paradigm (N = 5,002). For this purpose, we rely on a newly developed logistic regression approach for the analysis of nested data in cheating paradigms. We also test theoretically derived interactions of HH with other basic personality traits (i.e., Emotionality and Conscientiousness) and situational factors (i.e., the baseline probability of observing a favorable outcome) as well as the incremental validity of HH over demographic characteristics. The results show a medium to large effect of HH (odds ratio = 0.53), which was independent of other personality, situational, or demographic variables. Only one other trait (Big Five Agreeableness) was associated with unethical decision making, although it failed to show any incremental validity beyond HH.




Dieser Eintrag ist Teil der Universitätsbibliographie.




Metadaten-Export


Zitation


+ Suche Autoren in

+ Aufruf-Statistik

Aufrufe im letzten Jahr

Detaillierte Angaben



Sie haben einen Fehler gefunden? Teilen Sie uns Ihren Korrekturwunsch bitte hier mit: E-Mail


Actions (login required)

Eintrag anzeigen Eintrag anzeigen