Abstract
Purpose: This paper elucidates the determinants of dishonest behavior affecting various domains and aims to demonstrate how addressing these practices can substantially improve overall quality.
Methodology/Approach: A framed laboratory experiment with economics students from the University of West Bohemia was conducted, where participants chose between honest and lower-quality production. Using the Holt-Laury method, we measured risk aversion and personality traits using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Findings: Increased inspection probability significantly reduced lower-quality production, with a statistical significance level of less than 1%. Thinking type of personality and Risk Aversion are significant at the 10% level, indicating a moderate impact. Conversely, punishment and rewards were statistically insignificant, with p-values exceeding 10%.
Research Limitation/Implication: The study is limited by its homogeneous sample of economics students from a single university and insufficient gender representation, which may affect generalizability.
Originality/Value of paper: This research provides insights into how inspection probabilities, rewards, punishments, risk aversion, and personal characteristics influence dishonest behavior, aiding the development of strategies to reduce dishonesty and improve overall quality.
Full text article
References
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. & Thompson, R., 1995. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), pp.285-309.
Cialdini, R., Petrova, P. & Goldstein, N., 2004. The Hidden Cost of Organizational Dishonesty. MIT Sloan Management Review, (45), pp.67-73. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-hidden-costs-of-organizational-dishonesty/ [Accessed 2024-02-20].
DeAndrea, D. et al., 2009. The relationship between cheating behavior and sensation-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 47(issue 8), pp.944-947. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886909003390 [Accessed 2024-07-25].
Ding, S. et al., 2018. Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 150, pp.19-27. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167268118300878 [Accessed 2024-07-21].
Druică, E. et al., 2019. Exploring the Link between Academic Dishonesty and Economic Delinquency: A Partial Least Squares Path Modeling Approach. Mathematics, vol. 7(issue 12). https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/7/12/1241 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Elgar, F. & Aitken, N., 2011. Income inequality, trust and homicide in 33 countries. European Journal of Public Health, vol. 21(issue 2), pp.241-246. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckq068 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Fuoli, M., 2022. Structural equation modeling in R: A practical introduction for linguists. In D. Tay & M. Pan, eds. Data Analytics in Cognitive Linguistics. De Gruyter, pp. 75-102. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110687279-004/html [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Gino, F., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D., 2009. Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior. Psychological Science, vol. 20(issue 3), pp.393-398. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Hair, J. et al., 2021. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Hendy, N. & Montargot, N., 2019. Understanding Academic dishonesty among business school students in France using the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 17(issue 1), pp.85-93. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1472811718302258 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Hendy, N., Montargot, N. & Papadimitriou, A., 2021. Cultural Differences in Academic Dishonesty: A Social Learning Perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 19(issue 1), pp.49-70. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10805-021-09391-8 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Hilbig, B. & Thielmann, I., 2017. Does everyone have a price? On the role of payoff magnitude for ethical decision making. Cognition, vol. 163, pp.15-25. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010027717300525 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Hochman, G. et al., 2016. “I can see it in your eyes”: Biased Processing and Increased Arousal in Dishonest Responses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 29(2-3), pp.322-335. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.1932 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Kline, R., 2016. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 4th ed., New York: The Guilford Press.
Lederman, D., Loayza, N. & Menéndez, A., 2002. Violent Crime: Does Social Capital Matter?. Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 50(issue 3), pp.509-539. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/342422 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Lois, G. & Wessa, M., 2021. Honest mistake or perhaps not: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms on the magnitude of dishonesty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 34(issue 1), pp.20-34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2196 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Luccasen, R. & Thomas, M., 2014. Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment. Economics Letters, vol. 123(issue 2), pp.232-235. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165176514000767 [Accessed 2024-07-21].
Myers, I. et al., 1998. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 3 ed., Consulitng Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. & Myers, P., 2010. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type - The original book behind the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test, Hachette UK.
Anon., 2021. Osobnostní dotazník MBTI. Informační systém VŠZDRAV. https://is.vszdrav.cz/el/vsz/zima2021/PAPSL1112/um/Osobnostni_dotaznik_MBTI.pdf [Accessed 2024-07-10].
Rintoul, H. & Goulais, L., 2010. Vice Principalship and Moral Literacy: Developing a Moral Compass. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, vol. 38(issue 6), pp.745-757. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741143210379061 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Rothstein, B. & Uslaner, E., 2005. All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, vol. 58(issue 1), pp.41-72. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/200282 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Shu, L. et al., 2012. Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109(issue 38), pp.15197-15200. https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1209746109 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Speer, S., Smidts, A. & Boksem, M., 2020. Cognitive control increases honesty in cheaters but cheating in those who are honest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(issue 32), pp.19080-19091. https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2003480117 [Accessed 2024-02-20].
Authors
Copyright (c) 2024 Olga Martincikova Sojkova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.