Effectiveness of ex ante honesty oaths in reducing dishonesty depends on content.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Oct 2024
21 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
04
03
2024
accepted:
04
09
2024
medline:
22
10
2024
pubmed:
22
10
2024
entrez:
21
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Dishonest behaviours such as tax evasion impose significant societal costs. Ex ante honesty oaths-commitments to honesty before action-have been proposed as interventions to counteract dishonest behaviour, but the heterogeneity in findings across operationalizations calls their effectiveness into question. We tested 21 honesty oaths (including a baseline oath)-proposed, evaluated and selected by 44 expert researchers-and a no-oath condition in a megastudy involving 21,506 UK and US participants from Prolific.com who played an incentivized tax evasion game online. Of the 21 interventions, 10 significantly improved tax compliance by 4.5 to 8.5 percentage points, with the most successful nearly halving tax evasion. Limited evidence for moderators was found. Experts and laypeople failed to predict the most effective interventions, though experts' predictions were more accurate. In conclusion, honesty oaths were effective in curbing dishonesty, but their effectiveness varied depending on content. These findings can help design impactful interventions to curb dishonesty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39433937
doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0
pii: 10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Sommerstein, A. H. & Torrance, I. C. Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (De Gruyter, 2014); https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110227369
Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 137–158 (2000).
doi: 10.1257/jep.14.3.137
Bruin, B. Pledging integrity: oaths as forms of business ethics management. J. Bus. Ethics 136, 23–42 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2504-1
Gächter, S. & Schultz, J. F. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531, 496–499 (2016).
pubmed: 26958830
pmcid: 4817241
doi: 10.1038/nature17160
Abeler, J., Nosenzo, D. & Raymond, C. Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87, 1115–1153 (2019).
doi: 10.3982/ECTA14673
Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K. & Hertwig, R. The truth about lies: a meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychol. Bull. 145, 1–44 (2019).
pubmed: 30596431
doi: 10.1037/bul0000174
Leib, M., Köbis, N., Soraperra, I., Weisel, O. & Shalvi, S. Collaborative dishonesty: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 147, 1241 (2021).
pubmed: 35404634
doi: 10.1037/bul0000349
Jacobsen, C., Fosgaard, T. R. & Pascual-Ezama, D. Why do we lie? A practical guide to the dishonesty literature. J. Econ. Surv. 32, 357–387 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/joes.12204
Bellé, N. & Cantarelli, P. What causes unethical behavior? A meta-analysis to set an agenda for public administration research. Public Adm. Rev. 77, 327–339 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/puar.12714
Hertwig, R. & Mazar, N. Toward a taxonomy and review of honesty interventions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 47, 101410 (2022).
pubmed: 35921754
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101410
Zickfeld, J. H. et al. Committed (dis)honesty: a systematic meta-analytic review of the divergent effects of social commitment to individuals or honesty oaths on dishonest behavior. Psychol. Bull. 150, 586–620 (2024).
pubmed: 38619478
doi: 10.1037/bul0000429
Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Mark. Res. 45, 633–644 (2008).
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
Barkan, R., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D. Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 157–161 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.001
Jacquemet, N., Luchini, S., Malézieux, A. & Shogren, J. F. Who’ll stop lying under oath? Empirical evidence from tax evasion games. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124, 103369 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103369
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R. & Ayal, S. Self-serving justifications: doing wrong and feeling moral. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 125–130 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/0963721414553264
Koning, L., Junger, M. & van Hoof, J. Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty? Mind Soc. 19, 257–285 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11299-020-00237-1
Kristal, A. S. et al. Signing at the beginning versus at the end does not decrease dishonesty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7103–7107 (2020).
pubmed: 32179683
pmcid: 7132248
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1911695117
Chou, E. Y. What’s in a name? The toll e-signatures take on individual honesty. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61, 84–95 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.010
Cagala, T., Glogowsky, U., Rincke, J. & Schudy, S. Commitment requests do not affect truth-telling in laboratory and online experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 143, 179–190 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2023.11.014
Cagala, T., Glogowsky, U. & Rincke, J. Detecting and preventing cheating in exams: evidence from a field experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 59, 210–241 (2024).
doi: 10.3368/jhr.0620-10947R1
Kettle, S., Hernandez, M., Sanders, M., Hauser, O. & Ruda, S. Failure to CAPTCHA attention: null results from an honesty priming experiment in Guatemala. Behav. Sci. 7, 28 (2017).
pubmed: 28452941
pmcid: 5485458
doi: 10.3390/bs7020028
Koessler, A.-K., Torgler, B., Feld, L. P. & Frey, B. S. Commitment to pay taxes: results from field and laboratory experiments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 115, 78–98 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.02.006
Martuza, J. B., Skard, S. R., Løvlie, L. & Thorbjørnsen, H. Do honesty-nudges really work? A large-scale field experiment in an insurance context. J. Consum. Behav. 21, 927–951 (2022).
doi: 10.1002/cb.2049
Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D. & Bazerman, M. H. Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 15197–15200 (2012); retraction 118, e2115397118 (2021).
Peer, E., Mazar, N., Feldman, Y. & Ariely, D. How pledges reduce dishonesty: the role of involvement and identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 113, 104614 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104614
Jacquemet, N., Luchini, S., Rosaz, J. & Shogren, J. F. Truth-telling under oath. Manag. Sci. 65, 426–438 (2018).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2892
Zickfeld, J. H., Ścigala, K. A., Weiss, A., Michael, J. & Mitkidis, P. Commitment to honesty oaths decreases dishonesty, but commitment to another individual does not affect dishonesty. Commun. Psychol. 1, 27 (2023).
pubmed: 39242767
pmcid: 11332245
doi: 10.1038/s44271-023-00028-7
Schild, C., Heck, D. W., Scigala, K. A. & Zettler, I. Revisiting REVISE: (re)testing unique and combined effects of reminding, visibility, and self-engagement manipulations on cheating behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 75, 102161 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.04.001
Skowronek, S. E. DENIAL: a conceptual framework to improve honesty nudges. Curr. Opin. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101456 (2022).
Le Maux, B. & Necker, S. Honesty nudges: effect varies with content but not with timing. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 207, 433–456 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.01.011
Peer, E. & Feldman, Y. Honesty pledges for the behaviorally-based regulation of dishonesty. J. Eur. Public Policy 28, 761–781 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/13501763.2021.1912149
Duckworth, A. L. & Milkman, K. L. A guide to megastudies. PNAS Nexus 1, pgac214 (2022).
pubmed: 36712333
pmcid: 9802435
doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac214
Milkman, K. L. et al. Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature 600, 478–483 (2021).
pubmed: 34880497
pmcid: 8822539
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04128-4
Milkman, K. L. et al. A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2115126119 (2022).
pubmed: 35105809
pmcid: 8833156
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2115126119
Alm, J. & Malézieux, A. 40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis. Exp. Econ. 24, 699–750 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s10683-020-09679-3
Alm, J., Bloomquist, K. M. & McKee, M. On the external validity of laboratory tax compliance experiments. Econ. Inq. 53, 1170–1186 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/ecin.12196
Bloomquist, K. M. A comparative analysis of reporting compliance behavior in laboratory experiments and random taxpayer audits. In Proc. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association Vol. 102, 113–122 (National Tax Association, 2009).
Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M. & Isager, P. M. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 259–269 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245918770963
Schweitzer, M. E. & Hsee, C. K. Stretching the truth: elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. J. Risk Uncertain. 25, 185–201 (2002).
doi: 10.1023/A:1020647814263
Gollwitzer, P. M. & Sheeran, P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 69–119 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Mitkidis, P., Sørensen, J., Nielbo, K. L., Andersen, M. & Lienard, P. Collective-goal ascription increases cooperation in humans. PLoS ONE 8, e64776 (2013).
pubmed: 23705011
pmcid: 3660378
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064776
Mulder, L. B., Jordan, J. & Rink, F. The effect of specific and general rules on ethical decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 126, 115–129 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.002
Mulder, L. B., Rink, F. & Jordan, J. Constraining temptation: how specific and general rules mitigate the effect of personal gain on unethical behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 76, 102242 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.102242
Verschuere, B. et al. Registered replication report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 299–317 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245918781032
Zhao, J., Dong, Z. & Yu, R. Don’t remind me: when explicit and implicit moral reminders enhance dishonesty. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85, 103895 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103895
Toor, N. S. Comparison of Dishonesty Interventions: A Conceptual Replication Study. MA thesis, Univ. Chicago (2022); https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.5110
Jamison, J. C., Mazar, N. & Sen, I. Applying behavioral insights to tax compliance: experimental evidence from Latvia. J. Tax. Adm. 6, 6–32 (2021).
Ayal, S., Celse, J. & Hochman, G. Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: a field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 166, 9–19 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003
Lois, G. & Wessa, M. Honest mistake or perhaps not: the role of descriptive and injunctive norms on the magnitude of dishonesty. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 34, 20–34 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/bdm.2196
Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The behavioralist as tax collector: using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. J. Public Econ. 148, 14–31 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.003
Brudermann, T., Bartel, G., Fenzl, T. & Seebauer, S. Eyes on social norms: a field study on an honor system for newspaper sale. Theory Decis. 79, 285–306 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s11238-014-9460-1
Köbis, N. C., Troost, M., Brandt, C. O. & Soraperra, I. Social norms of corruption in the field: social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behav. Public Policy 6, 597–624 (2022).
doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.37
Fellner, G., Sausgruber, R. & Traxler, C. Testing enforcement strategies in the field: threat, moral appeal and social information. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 634–660 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/jeea.12013
Dimant, E., Van Kleef, G. A. & Shalvi, S. Requiem for a nudge: framing effects in nudging honesty. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 172, 247–266 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.015
Castro, L. & Scartascini, C. Tax compliance and enforcement in the pampas evidence from a field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 116, 65–82 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.002
Hernandez, M., Jamison, J., Korczyc, E., Mazar, N. & Sormani, R. Applying Behavioral Insights to Improve Tax Collection: Experimental Evidence from Poland Working Paper (World Bank, 2017).
Köbis, N., Starke, C. & Rahwan, I. The promise and perils of using artificial intelligence to fight corruption. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 418–424 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s42256-022-00489-1
Capraro, V. et al. The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus 3, pgae191 (2024).
Guzikevits, M. & Choshen-Hillel, S. The optics of lying: how pursuing an honest social image shapes dishonest behavior. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 46, 101384 (2022).
pubmed: 35797742
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101384
Alm, J. & Torgler, B. Culture differences and tax morale in the United States and in Europe. J. Econ. Psychol. 27, 224–246 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2005.09.002
Heck, D. W., Thielmann, I., Moshagen, M. & Hilbig, B. E. Who lies? A large-scale reanalysis linking basic personality traits to unethical decision making. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 13, 356–371 (2018).
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500009232
Capraro, V. Gender differences in lying in sender–receiver games: a meta-analysis. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 13, 345–355 (2018).
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500009220
DellaVigna, S. & Pope, D. Predicting experimental results: who knows what? J. Polit. Econ. 126, 2410–2456 (2018).
doi: 10.1086/699976
Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D. & Rentfrow, P. J. Small effects: the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 205–215 (2022).
pubmed: 34213378
doi: 10.1177/1745691620984483
Zizzo, D. J. Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 13, 75–98 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-z
Jacquemet, N., James, A. G., Luchini, S., Murphy, J. J. & Shogren, J. F. Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working? PLoS ONE 16, e0244958 (2021).
pubmed: 33449931
pmcid: 7810327
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244958
Jacquemet, N., Luchini, S., Rosaz, J. & Shogren, J. F. Can we commit future managers to honesty? Front. Psychol. 12, 701627 (2021).
pubmed: 34484050
pmcid: 8414966
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701627
Jacquemet, N., Joule, R.-V., Luchini, S. & Shogren, J. F. Preference elicitation under oath. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65, 110–132 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004
Jacquemet, N., James, A., Luchini, S. & Shogren, J. F. Referenda under oath. Environ. Resour. Econ. 67, 479–504 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0023-5
Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E. & Thies, W. Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 22, 28 (2015).
doi: 10.1145/2810239
Uhlmann, E. L. et al. Scientific utopia III: crowdsourcing science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 711–733 (2019).
pubmed: 31260639
doi: 10.1177/1745691619850561
Palan, S. & Schitter, C. Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 17, 22–27 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z. & Damer, E. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 1643–1662 (2022).
pubmed: 34590289
doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
De Vries, R. E. The 24-item brief HEXACO inventory (BHI). J. Res. Pers. 47, 871–880 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.003
Yamagishi, T. & Yamagishi, M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18, 129–166 (1994).
doi: 10.1007/BF02249397
Skowronek, S. About 70% of participants know that the canonical deception paradigms measure dishonesty. Acad. Manag. Proc. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.107 (2021).
Lakens, D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 8, 33267 (2022).
doi: 10.1525/collabra.33267
Kubinec, R. Ordered beta regression: a parsimonious, well-fitting model for continuous data with lower and upper bounds. Polit. Anal. 31, 519–536 (2023).
doi: 10.1017/pan.2022.20
Bolker, B. Getting Started with the glmmTMB Package (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).
Zickfeld, J. MegaOath: datasets. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13329833 (2024).
Zickfeld, J. H. Datasets to ‘Effectiveness of ex-ante honesty oaths in reducing dishonesty depends on content’. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10777159 (2024).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).
Robinson, D., Hayes, A. & Couch, S. broom: Convert statistical objects into tidy tibbles. R package version 1.0.4 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broom (2023).
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K. & Vaughan, D. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.1.1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (2023).
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).
Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. R package version 0.4.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr (2020).
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).
doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Firke, S. janitor: Simple tools for examining and cleaning dirty data. R package version 2.1.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=janitor (2021).
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).
Arel-Bundock, V. marginaleffects: Predictions, comparisons, slopes, marginal means, and hypothesis tests. R package version 0.14.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=marginaleffects (2023).
Taketomi, N. & Emura, T. meta.shrinkage: Meta-analyses for simultaneously estimating individual means. R package version 0.1.4 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=meta.shrinkage (2023).
Aust, F. & Barth, M. papaja: Prepare reproducible APA journal articles with R Markdown. R package version 0.1.1 https://github.com/crsh/papaja (2022).
Wickham, H. & Henry, L. purrr: Functional programming tools. R package version 1.0.1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr (2023).
Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package version 2.2.5 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (2022).
Ginn, J., O’Brien, J. & Silge, J. qualtRics: Download ‘qualtrics’ survey data. R package version 3.1.7 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=qualtRics (2022).
Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. R package version 2.8.14 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot (2023).
Wickham, H. stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.5.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr (2022).
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).
doi: 10.21105/joss.01686
van Buuren, S. & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03 (2011).