Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T12:36:37.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dishonesty and charitable behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Doru Cojoc  and
Adrian Stoian
Doru Cojoc*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1994, USA
Adrian Stoian
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, CA 94542, USA
*
doru-cojoc@uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine in the laboratory how having the opportunity to donate to a charity in the future affects the likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior in the present. We also examine how charitable donations are affected by past ethical choices. First, subjects self-report their performance on a task, which provides them with an opportunity for undetected cheating. In the second stage they can donate some of the money earned in the first stage to a charity. Only subjects in the treatment group know about the opportunity to donate in the second stage. We find that more subjects cheat if they know they can donate some of the money to charity. We also find that subjects in treatment end up donating less to charity and that both honest and dishonest subjects donate less in treatment. We propose a new hypothesis that explains these results: past violations of social norms numb one’s conscience, leading to more antisocial behavior.

Keywords

DishonestyCharityDonationsIdentityGuilt

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers L31: Nonprofit Institutions • NGOs • Social Entrepreneurship
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 717 - 732
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9391-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We are grateful to the editor and two anonymous referees for their extremely helpful comments and suggestions. We benefited from discussions with Dan Ariely, Michael Bailey, Doug Bernheim, Jed DeVaro, Dan Fragiadakis, Martin Gervais, Asen Ivanov, Uzma Khan, Muriel Niederle, Jonathan Meer, Tomás Rodriguez Barraquer, Roberto Weber, and Nicolas Ziebarth. We would like to also thank participants at the University of Iowa, California State University, East Bay, Bay Area Behavioral and Experimental Economics workshops as well as the ESA meetings in New York and Tucson, the ESA European conference in Cologne, the WEAI conference in San Francisco and the SEA conference in New Orleans for their helpful comments. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support we received from California State University, East Bay. All errors are ours.

References

Andreoni, J. Gerard-Varet, L. A., Kolm, S. C., & Ythier, J. M. (2006). Philanthropy. Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism, Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier 1201–1269.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Connolly, C., & Myers, C. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 282–298. 10.1007/s10683-007-9193-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassone, A., & Marchese, C. (1999). The economics of religious indulgences. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 155(3), 429–442.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 502–516. 10.1016/0022-1031(73)90031-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise. An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547. 10.1111/jeea.12014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2012). Cheating in the workplace: an experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity. Working paper.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: the role of consequences. The American Economic Review, 95, 384–394. 10.1257/0002828053828662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U., Imas, A., & Madarasz, K. (2012). Conscience accounting: emotional dynamics and social behavior. Working paper.Google Scholar
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723–742. 10.1002/mar.20181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurkens, S., & Kartik, N. (2009). Would I lie to you? On social preferences and lying aversion. Experimental Economics, 12, 180–192. 10.1007/s10683-008-9208-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotchen, M. (2006). Green markets and private provision of public goods. Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 816–834. 10.1086/506337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuran, T. (1996). The discontents of Islamic economic morality. The American Economic Review, 86, 438–442.Google Scholar
Lundquist, T., Ellingsen, T., Gribbe, E., & Johannesson, M. (2002). The aversion to lying. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 81–92. 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 117–126. 10.1509/jppm.25.1.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33–43. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Cojoc and Stoian supplementary material

Appendix 1-3
Download Cojoc and Stoian supplementary material(File)
File 150.6 KB