Jing Liang , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , Wen-Jing Yan
{"title":"诚实的认知动态:冲突水平差异如何影响伦理决策","authors":"Jing Liang , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , Wen-Jing Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (<em>F</em> (6, 288) = 6.96, <em>p</em> < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> < 0.01 or <em>p</em> < 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (<em>r</em> = −0.77, <em>p</em> < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> < 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"240 ","pages":"Article 113141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Jing Liang , Jun Qian , Ya-Jing Zhang , Wang-Cheng Cen , Wen-Jing Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (<em>F</em> (6, 288) = 6.96, <em>p</em> < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, <em>p</em> < 0.01 or <em>p</em> < 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (<em>r</em> = −0.77, <em>p</em> < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (<em>r</em> = 0.60, <em>p</em> < 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\"240 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925001035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925001035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关于道德决策的研究争论诚实是直觉还是控制。最近的研究提出了内化策略,表明诚实和不诚实反应的个体倾向差异。本研究考察了冲突水平的差异如何影响具有不同内化策略的人在道德决策中的RTs。所有128名参与者(诚实者、偶尔作弊者和经常作弊者)都完成了测量不道德行为的视觉感知任务(七个差异水平)。偶尔作弊者在冲突条件下表现出显著不同的RTs (F (6, 288) = 6.96, p <;0.001),最大的差异导致更长的时间(平均差异从36.84到47.82 ms, p <;0.01或p <;0.001)。诚实的参与者和经常作弊的参与者在冲突的不同程度上没有显着差异。对于频繁作弊者,平均RTs差异(冲突减去非冲突条件)与作弊频率之间存在显著负相关(r = - 0.77, p <;0.001),而偶尔作弊者表现出显著的正相关(r = 0.60, p <;0.001)。研究表明,道德冲突对决策的影响取决于个体的内化策略。这些发现为道德决策提供了一个细致入微的视角,挑战了简单的模型,并提出了促进道德行为的个性化方法。
The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making
Research on ethical decision-making debates whether honesty is intuitive or controlled. Recent studies propose internalized strategies, suggesting individual propensity differences in honest or dishonest responses. This study examined how discrepancy levels of conflict affect RTs in ethical decisions for people with different internalized strategies. All the 128 participants (honest, occasional cheaters, or frequent cheaters) completed visual perception tasks (seven discrepancy levels) measuring unethical behavior. Occasional cheaters showed significantly different RTs under conflict conditions (F (6, 288) = 6.96, p < 0.001), with highest discrepancy causing longer times (mean differences from 36.84 to 47.82 ms, p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). Honest participants and frequent cheaters showed no significant differences across discrepancy levels of conflict. For frequent cheaters, there was a significant negative correlation between mean RTs difference (conflict minus non-conflict condition) and cheating frequency (r = −0.77, p < 0.001), while occasional cheaters showed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). The study shows ethical conflict affects decision-making differently based on individuals' internalized strategies. These findings provide a nuanced view of ethical decision-making, challenging simple models and suggesting personalized approaches to promote ethical behavior.
期刊介绍:
Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.