People imitate others' dishonesty but do not intentionally search information about it

When people see that others lie for financial profit, they are more likely to lie themselves. But do people search for information about others' behavior in ethically tempting situations? And among those who search, what type of information do they search for? Specifically, do people search for information about others' dishonesty in particular, to justify their future transgressions, or do they search for information about others' behavior in general to learn about the descriptive social norm? Across four financially incentivized experiments (N-total = 2642), participants engaged in a task in which they could lie for profit. Before starting their task, participants could search for information about others' behavior in the same task. Results reveal that when people search for information, they do so in order to learn about the descriptive norm, not to intentionally learn about others' dishonesty. When the decision to search for information results in observing more dishonest others, participants become more dishonest themselves. Testing a boundary condition revealed that when information search is costly (vs. free), people search for less information, observe less dishonest others, and subsequently are less dishonest themselves. Findings suggest that in settings where people may act dishonestly, information about others behavior should be costly to obtain

Perspective taking does not moderate the price precision effect, but indirectly affects counteroffers to asking prices

Precise asking-prices (e.g., $249,800), compared with round ones (e.g.,$250,000), are stronger anchors, leading buyers to counter closer to the asking-price. This 'precision effect' is driven by (i) higher evaluation of the seller's competence, and (ii) buyers using a finer-grained numerical scale when the asking-price is precise compared with round. But are buyers more susceptible to precise anchors, the more they take the seller's perspective? If so, what are the underlying mechanisms leading to this increased susceptibility? We examine the potential moderating role of trait (Experiment 1) and manipulated (Experiment 2) perspective-taking on the price precision effect and its underlying mechanisms. We test the prediction that the more buyers take the seller's perspective, the more they will evaluate a precise-opening seller as competent, which in turn will increase buyers' susceptibility to precise prices (H1). We further test two competing predictions regarding the moderating role (H2a) of perspective-taking versus lack thereof (H2b) on buyers' use of a finer-grained numerical scale when countering a precise asking-price. Results revealed that precise asking-prices lead to counteroffers closer to the asking-price. This price precision effect was driven by the scale granularity, but not the perception of seller's competence mechanism. Further, perspective-taking did not moderate the price precision effect. Exploratory analyses revealed that perspective-taking leads to higher perception of seller's competence, which in turn leads to counteroffers that are closer to the asking-price. Overall, both price precision and perspective-taking shape counteroffers (but not in an interaction), making the two factors important in negotiation processes

Corrupted by algorithms?:How AI-generated and human-written advice shape (dis)honesty

Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly becomes an indispensable advisor. New ethical concerns arise if AI persuades people to behave dishonestly. In an experiment, we study how AI advice (generated by a Natural-Language-Processing algorithm) affects (dis)honesty, compare it to equivalent human advice, and test whether transparency about advice source matters. We find that dishonesty-promoting advice increases dishonesty, whereas honesty-promoting advice does not increase honesty. This is the case for both AI- and human advice. Algorithmic transparency, a commonly proposed policy to mitigate AI risks, does not affect behaviour. The findings mark the first steps towards managing AI advice responsibly

The Exogenous Rule of Law: Comparative Evidence about the General Duty to Obey the Law Amongst Law Students

Van Rooij will also draw from qualitative data from lawyers in China and the Netherlands as well as from farmers in China

People imitate others' dishonesty but do not intentionally search information about it

When people see that others lie for financial profit, they are more likely to lie themselves. But do people search for information about others' behavior in ethically tempting situations? And among those who search, what type of information do they search for? Specifically, do people search for information about others' dishonesty in particular, to justify their future transgressions, or do they search for information about others' behavior in general to learn about the descriptive social norm? Across four financially incentivized experiments (N-total = 2642), participants engaged in a task in which they could lie for profit. Before starting their task, participants could search for information about others' behavior in the same task. Results reveal that when people search for information, they do so in order to learn about the descriptive norm, not to intentionally learn about others' dishonesty. When the decision to search for information results in observing more dishonest others, participants become more dishonest themselves. Testing a boundary condition revealed that when information search is costly (vs. free), people search for less information, observe less dishonest others, and subsequently are less dishonest themselves. Findings suggest that in settings where people may act dishonestly, information about others behavior should be costly to obtain