Literature DB >> 25878171

Justifications shape ethical blind spots.

Andrea Pittarello1, Margarita Leib1, Tom Gordon-Hecker1, Shaul Shalvi2.   

Abstract

To some extent, unethical behavior results from people's limited attention to ethical considerations, which results in an ethical blind spot. Here, we focus on the role of ambiguity in shaping people's ethical blind spots, which in turn lead to their ethical failures. We suggest that in ambiguous settings, individuals' attention shifts toward tempting information, which determines the magnitude of their lies. Employing a novel ambiguous-dice paradigm, we asked participants to report the outcome of the die roll appearing closest to the location of a previously presented fixation cross on a computer screen; this outcome would determine their pay. We varied the value of the die second closest to the fixation cross to be either higher (i.e., tempting) or lower (i.e., not tempting) than the die closest to the fixation cross. Results of two experiments revealed that in ambiguous settings, people's incorrect responses were self-serving. Tracking participants' eye movements demonstrated that people's ethical blind spots are shaped by increased attention toward tempting information.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambiguity; attention allocation; dishonesty; ethical decision making; eye movements; morality; open data; open materials; preregistered; self-deception

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25878171     DOI: 10.1177/0956797615571018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  11 in total

1.  The relationship between attention allocation and cheating.

Authors:  Andrea Pittarello; Daphna Motro; Enrico Rubaltelli; Patrik Pluchino
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-04

2.  Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution.

Authors:  Oliver Braganza
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 2.963

3.  The Co-evolution of Honesty and Strategic Vigilance.

Authors:  Christophe Heintz; Mia Karabegovic; Andras Molnar
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-10-13

4.  Moral Reminders Do Not Reduce Symptom Over-Reporting Tendencies.

Authors:  Isabella J M Niesten; Wenke Müller; Harald Merckelbach; Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Marko Jelicic
Journal:  Psychol Inj Law       Date:  2017-11-11

5.  Emotional intelligence buffers the effect of physiological arousal on dishonesty.

Authors:  Andrea Pittarello; Beatrice Conte; Marta Caserotti; Sara Scrimin; Enrico Rubaltelli
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

6.  Visual saliency influences ethical blind spots and (dis)honesty.

Authors:  Andrea Pittarello; Marcella Frătescu; Sebastiaan Mathôt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

7.  Rule Following Mitigates Collaborative Cheating and Facilitates the Spreading of Honesty Within Groups.

Authors:  Jörg Gross; Carsten K W De Dreu
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2020-06-17

8.  Motivated Interpretations of Deceptive Information.

Authors:  Sigal Vainapel; Yaniv Shani; Shaul Shalvi
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-02-26

9.  Do All Types of Compassion Increase Prosocial Lying?

Authors:  Xu Fang; Lixiang Chen; Jie Wang; Qun Zhang; Lei Mo
Journal:  Psychol Res Behav Manag       Date:  2020-05-18

10.  Cognitive strategies for managing cheating: The roles of cognitive abilities in managing moral shortcuts.

Authors:  Avshalom Galil; Maor Gidron; Jessica Yarmolovsky; Ronny Geva
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-05-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.