Increasing honesty is critical in modern society. Moral Disengagement Tactics (MDTs) enable individuals to engage in unethical behavior while avoiding self-criticism, making MDTs a form of self-persuasion. One way to prevent persuasion is inoculation. Across three experiments (N = 972), two preregistered, we randomly assigned individuals to a code of ethics versus inoculation to MDTs condition. Study 1 (n = 443) found that those high in narcissism reported increased ethical intentions in the inoculation condition. Study 2 (n = 224) replicated and extended this effect, finding that individuals high in narcissism were more likely to behave honestly in the inoculation condition. Study 3 (n = 305) was a longitudinal study finding that inoculating those high in narcissism led to fewer lies over the past week’s inoculation. None of these interaction patterns emerged for Machiavellianism or psychopathy. Thus, inoculation to MDTs appears effective in reducing dishonesty among those high in narcissism.
AckermanR. A.WittE. A.DonnellanM. B.TrzesniewskiK. H.RobinsR. W.KashyD. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?Assessment, 18(1), 67–87.
3.
BabriM.DavidsonB.HelinS. (2021). An updated inquiry into the study of corporate codes of ethics: 2005-2016. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 71–108.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
6.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
7.
BanduraA. (2015). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth.
8.
BarangerD. A. A.FinsaasM. C.GoldsteinB. L.VizeC. E.LynamD. R.OlinoT. M. (2023). Tutorial: Power analyses for interaction effects in cross-sectional regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231187531
9.
BazermanM. H.TenbrunselA. E.BradburyM.OsborneS. C. (2012). Book Review: Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do About It. Public Integrity, 14(4), 413–422.
10.
BereczkeiT. (2015). The manipulative skill: Cognitive devices and their neural correlates underlying Machiavellian’s decision making. Brain and Cognition, 99, 24–31.
11.
BrecherR. (2014). Values-based practice: But which values, and whose?Debates in Values-Based Practice: Arguments for and Against, 62–68.
12.
BlairR. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387–392.
13.
BlairR. J. R.MarshA. A.FingerE.BlairK. S.LuoJ. (2006). Neuro-cognitive systems involved in morality. Philosophical Explorations, 9(1), 13–27.
14.
BoisjolyR.CurtisE. F.MellicanE. (1989). Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger disaster: The ethical dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(4), 217–230.
CarréJ. R.JonesD. N. (2017). Decision making, morality, and Machiavellianism: The role of dispositional traits in gist extraction. Review of General Psychology, 21, 23–29.
17.
ChandlerJ.MuellerP.PaolacciG. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112–130.
18.
ChristieR.GeisF. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
19.
ChughD.BazermanM.BanajiM. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In MooreD.CainD.LoewensteinG.BazermanM. (Eds.), Conflict of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74–95). Cambridge University Press.
20.
ComptonJ. (2013). Inoculation theory. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 220–237). Sage.
21.
ComptonJ. (2020). Prophylactic versus therapeutic inoculation treatments for resistance to influence. Communication Theory, 30(3), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz004
22.
ComptonJ.IvanovB. (2013). Vaccinating voters: Surveying political campaign inoculation scholarship. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679152
23.
ComptonJ.JacksonB.DimmockJ. A. (2016). Persuading others to avoid persuasion: Inoculation theory and resistant health attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00122
24.
ComptonJ.van der LindenS.CookJ.BasolM. (2021). Inoculation theory in the post-truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(15), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12602
25.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
26.
CresseyD. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. The Free Press.
27.
de BruinB. (2016). Pledging integrity: Oaths as forms of business ethics management. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), 23–42.
28.
EmmonsR. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 11–17.
FlakeJ. K.FriedE. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
31.
FlakeJ. K.PekJ.HehmanE. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
32.
FordJ. D.FordL. W.D’AmelioA. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of management Review, 33(2), 362–377.
33.
GebauerJ. E.SedikidesC.VerplankenB.MaioG. R. (2012). Communal narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 854–878.
34.
GentileB.MillerJ. D.HoffmanB. J.ReidyD. E.ZeichnerA.CampbellW. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory–13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120–1136.
35.
GreavesM.ZibarrasL. D.StrideC. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120.
36.
HareR. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25–54.
37.
HarlandP.StaatsH.WilkeH. A. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505–2528.
38.
HarrisonA.SummersJ.MenneckeB. (2018). The effects of the dark triad on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153, 53–77.
39.
HartW.AdamsJ.BurtonK. A.TortorielloG. K. (2017). Narcissism and self-presentation: Profiling grandiose and vulnerable Narcissists’ self-presentation tactic use. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 48–57.
40.
HartW.BreedenC. J.RichardsonK. (2019). Differentiating dark personalities on impression management. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 58–62.
41.
HartmanL.DesjardinsJ.MacDonaldC. (2024). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
42.
HartmanL. A.MetselaarS.MolewijkA. C.EdelbroekH. M.WiddershovenG. A. (2018). Developing an ethics support tool for dealing with dilemmas around client autonomy based on moral case deliberations. BMC Medical Ethics, 19, 1–11.
JacksonB.ComptonJ.ThorntonA. L.DimmockJ. A. (2017). Re-thinking anxiety: Using inoculation messages to reduce and reinterpret public speaking fears. PLOS ONE, 12(1), Article e0169972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169972
45.
JonesD. N. (2014). Risk in the face of retribution: Psychopathic persistence in financial misbehavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 109–113.
46.
JonesD. N.OlderbakS. G.FigueredoA. J. (2011). The intentions towards infidelity scale. In FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L.DavisS. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 251–253). Routledge.
47.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2011). Differentiating the dark triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In HorowitzL. M.StrackS. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249 –268). Wiley.
48.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2017). Duplicity among the Dark Triad: Three faces of deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 329–342.
49.
KrizanZ.HerlacheA. D. (2018). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3–31.
50.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
51.
LimJ. S.KiE. J. (2007). Resistance to ethically suspicious parody video on YouTube: A test of inoculation theory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 713–728.
52.
LynamD. R.MillerJ. D. (2019). The basic trait of antagonism: An unfortunately underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118–126.
53.
McCabeD. L.TrevinoL. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.
54.
McGuireW. J. (1964). Some contemporary approaches. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.
55.
McGuireW. J.PapageorgisD. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327.
56.
MorfC. C.RhodewaltF. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196.
57.
MurphyK. R.RussellC. J. (2017). Mend it or end it: Redirecting the search for interactions in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 549–573.
58.
MurphyP. R. (2012). Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4), 242–259.
59.
MurphyP. R.WynesM.HahnT. A.DevineP. G. (2020). Why are people honest? Internal and external motivations to report honestly. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(2), 945–981.
60.
NeumannC. S.JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2022). Examining the short dark tetrad (SD4) across models, correlates, and gender. Assessment, 29(4), 651–667.
61.
O’ReillyC. A.IIIDoerrB. (2020). Conceit and deceit: Lying, cheating, and stealing among grandiose narcissists. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109627.
62.
PaulhusD. L.BuckelsE. E.TrapnellP. D.JonesD. N. (2021). Screening for dark personalities. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(3), 208–222.
63.
PaulhusD. L.WilliamsK. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.
64.
PeerE.FeldmanY. (2021). Honesty pledges for the behaviorally-based regulation of dishonesty. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(5), 761–781.
PfauM.TusingK. J.KoernerA. F.LeeW.GodboldL. C.PenalozaL. J.YangV. S.HongY. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00413.x
67.
PopoolaI. T.GarnerB.AmmeterA.KreyN.Beu AmmeterD.SchaferS. (2017). How does ethics institutionalization reduce academic cheating?Journal of Education for Business, 92(1), 29–35.
68.
RahmanF. (2020). The relationships among love of money and unethical behaviour. Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 2, 141–150.
69.
RaskinR.HallC. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternative form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(2), 159–162.
ScheinE. (2016). Organization culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
72.
Schroeder-AbeM.FatfoutaR. (2019). Shades of narcissistic dishonesty: Grandiose versus vulnerable narcissism and the role of self-conscious emotions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 148–158.
73.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803–809.
SinghJ. B. (2011). Determinants of the effectiveness of corporate codes of ethics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 385–395.
76.
StephensT. M. (2017). Situational awareness and the nursing code of ethics. American Nurse Today, 12(11), 56–58.
77.
StylianouA. C.WinterS.NiuY.GiacaloneR. A.CampbellM. (2013). Understanding the behavioral intention to report unethical information technology practices: The role of Machiavellianism, gender, and computer expertise. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 333–343.
78.
TenbrunselA. E.BazermanM. H. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton University Press.
79.
TenbrunselA. E.MessickD. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social justice research, 17, 223–236.
80.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). Ernst & young to pay $100 million penalty for employees cheating on CPA ethics exams and misleading investigation. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-114
81.
VernonP. A.VillaniV. C.VickersL. C.HarrisJ. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 445–452.
82.
WagnerT.LutzR. J.WeitzB. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77–91.
83.
WaplesE. P.AntesA. L.MurphyS. T.ConnellyS.MumfordM. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.
84.
WongN. C. H.HarrisonK. J. (2014). Nuances in inoculation: Protecting positive attitudes toward the HPV vaccine and the practice of vaccinating children. Journal of Women’s Health, Issues and Care, 3, 6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-9795.1000170
85.
ZhangL.HuangX. X.ChenH. F. (2018). An exploration of the protective effects of investigators’ ethical awareness upon subjects of drug clinical trials in China. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 15, 89–100.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
