This registered report investigates the role of the target’s sex in selfish dishonest behavior. Informed by moral typecasting theory, we hypothesized individuals to be more dishonest toward male than female targets, and this effect will be stronger among male than female decision-makers. A total of 3,166 male and female participants from nine countries were incentivized to lie and increase their payoffs at the cost of another same-sex, opposite-sex, or unmentioned-sex participant with zero risks of detection, punishment, or reputational consequences. We did not find statistically significant evidence of female targets being cheated less than male targets overall. However, we found a significant interaction between the target and decision-maker, albeit a different nature than predicted. Female decision-makers cheated female (vs. male) targets 53.6% less, while male decision-makers cheated male and female targets similarly. Linking target characteristics and moral decision-making, our research suggests that female ingroup favoritism may underlie gender bias in interpersonal dishonest behavior.
AgnemanG.Chevrot-BiancoE. (2023). Market participation and moral decision-making: Experimental evidence from Greenland. The Economic Journal, 133(650), 537–581. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac069
2.
ArnestadM.StudzinskaA.NordmoM.MatthiesenS. B. (2020). HeToo? Men trivialize cases of sexual harassment by a female aggressor toward a male victim, but women do not [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q2zhg
3.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
4.
BoghratiR.BergerJ. (2023). Quantifying cultural change: Gender bias in music. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9), 2591–2602. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001412
5.
CameronJ. J.StinsonD. A. (2019). Gender (mis)measurement: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(11), Article e12506. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506
6.
CappelenA. W.FalchR.TungoddenB. (2019). The boy crisis: Experimental evidence on the acceptance of males falling behind. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3348981
7.
Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation (BatesN.ChinM.BeckerT., Eds). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26424
8.
DijkerA. J. M. (2010). Perceived vulnerability as a common basis of moral emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X482668
9.
DimantE. (2023). Hate Trumps love: The impact of political polarization on social preferences. Management Science, 70, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4701
10.
EaglyA. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781906
11.
EaglyA. H.CrowleyM. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
13.
FeldmanHallO.DalgleishT.EvansD.NavradyL.TedeschiE.MobbsD. (2016). Moral Chivalry: Gender and harm sensitivity predict costly altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616647448
14.
FischbacherU.Föllmi-HeusiF. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014
15.
GeorgeacO. A. M.RattanA.EffronD. A. (2019). An exploratory investigation of Americans’ expression of gender bias before and after the 2016 presidential election. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 632–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618776624
16.
GerlachP.TeodorescuK.HertwigR. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174
17.
GibsonR.TannerC.WagnerA. F. (2013). Preferences for truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within individuals. American Economic Review, 103(1), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.532
18.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
GneezyU.KajackaiteA.SobelJ. (2018). Lying Aversion and the Size of the Lie. American Economic Review, 108(2), 419–453. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161553
21.
GrasoM.ReynoldsT.AquinoK. (2023). Worth the risk? Greater acceptance of instrumental harm befalling men than women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52, 2433–2445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02571-0
22.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748
JacobsenC.FosgaardT. R.Pascual-EzamaD. (2018). Why do we lie? A practical guide to the dishonesty literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(2), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12204
25.
JampolL.ZayasV. (2021). Gendered White lies: Women are given inflated performance feedback compared with men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220916622
26.
JiangT. (2013). Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.003
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BossonJ. K.JurekP.BestaT.OlechM.VandelloJ. A.BenderM.DandyJ.HoorensV.Jasinskaja-LahtiI.MankowskiE.VenäläinenS.AbuhamdehS.AgyemangC. B.AkbaşG.Albayrak-AydemirN.AmmiratiS.AndersonJ.AnjumG.. . .ŻadkowskaM. (2023). Gendered self-views across 62 countries: A test of competing models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(7), 808–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221129687
29.
KrayL. J.KennedyJ. A.Van ZantA. B. (2014). Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.002
30.
LeflerE. K.TablerJ.Abu-RamadanT. M.StevensA. E.SerranoJ. W.SheltonC. R.HartungC. M. (2023). Sex, gender, and sexual orientation in psychological research: Exploring data trends & researcher opinions. Psychological Reports. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231199959
31.
MartuzaJ.SjåstadH.ThorbjørnsenH. (2023). Business-size bias in moral concern: People are more dishonest against big than small organizations [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/aujfy
32.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
33.
OhD.DotschR.PorterJ.TodorovA. (2020). Gender biases in impressions from faces: Empirical studies and computational models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000638
34.
OwuamalamC. K.MatosA. S. (2022). Heterosexual men in Trump’s America downplay compassion more for masculine (than for feminine) gay victims of hate crime: Why?European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2787
35.
PeralesF.KuskoffE.FloodM.KingT. (2023). Like father, like son: Empirical insights into the intergenerational continuity of masculinity ideology. Sex Roles, 88(9–10), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y
36.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
37.
RégnerI.Thinus-BlancC.NetterA.SchmaderT.HuguetP. (2019). Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0686-3
38.
ReynoldsT.HowardC.SjåstadH.ZhuL.OkimotoT. G.BaumeisterR. F.AquinoK.KimJ. (2020). Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.05.002
39.
RossW. T.RobertsonD. C. (2000). Lying: The impact of decision context. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(2), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857884
40.
RotmanJ. D.KhamitovM.ConnorsS. (2018). Lie, cheat, and steal: How harmful brands motivate consumers to act unethically. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1002
41.
RudmanL. A.GoodwinS. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
42.
SaadG.GillT. (2001). The effects of a recipient’s gender in a modified dictator game. Applied Economics Letters, 8(7), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850010005260
43.
ShepherdS.KayA. C.GrayK. (2019). Military veterans are morally typecast as agentic but unfeeling: Implications for veteran employment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.06.003
44.
ShorE.van de RijtA.FotouhiB. (2019). A large-scale test of gender bias in the media. Sociological Science, 6, 526–550. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a20
45.
SoraperraI.WeiselO.PlonerM. (2019). Is the victim Max (Planck) or Moritzã£? How victim type and social value orientation affect dishonest behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2104
46.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2019). No gain without pain: The psychological costs of dishonesty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.001
47.
TønnesenM. H.ElbækC. T.PfattheicherS.MitkidisP. (2024). Communication increases collaborative corruption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 112, 104603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104603
48.
YamK. C.ReynoldsS. J. (2016). The effects of victim anonymity on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5
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.
