Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 259–272 | Cite as

Reexamination of the Association Between Anonymity and Self-Interested Unethical Behavior in Adults

  • Tatsuya Nogami
Article

Abstract

The well-established notion that the frequency of self-interested unethical behavior increases among anonymous people was reexamined employing a more strict definition of anonymity, voluntary unethical behavior, and adult individuals. Anonymity was defined as nonassociability of the participant’s traits with respect to unethical behavior. The participant’s identity and a monetary reward were manipulated as the independent variables, while cheating behavior was observed as the dependent variable. A sample of 143 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions (nonidentifiable-reward, identifiable-reward, nonidentifiable-nonreward, or identifiable-nonreward condition) to flip a coin twice in the experimental assignment. Results indicated that participants behaved differently depending on anonymity status and reward status. Implications for unethical behavior among anonymous individuals are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASCH, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BANDURA, A., & WALTERS, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  3. BERSOFF, D. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CARVER, H. S. (1974). Facilitation of physical aggression through objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DE CREMER, D., & BAKKER, M. (2003). Accountability and cooperation in social dilemmas: The influence of others’ reputational concerns. Current Psychology, 22, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DIENER, E., FRASER, S. C., BEAMAN, A. L., & KELEM, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DIENER, E., & WALLBON, M. (1976). Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DUVAL, T. S., & WICKLUND, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. ECKEL, C. C., & GROSSMAN, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FREY, B. S., & MEIER, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FOX, J., & GUYER, M. (1978). “Public” choice and cooperation in n-person prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GROVER, S. L., & HUI, C. (1994). The influence of role conflict and self-interest on lying in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HARAOKA, K. (1990). Attitude and value: Orientation toward money attitude structure and composition of an attitude scale. [Okane ni taisuru taido to kachisikou I: Taido no kouzou to taidoshakudo no kousei]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Nagoya University (Educational Psychology), Japan, 37, 199–216.Google Scholar
  14. HEGARTY, W. H., & SIMS, Jr., H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. HOFFMAN, E., MCCABE, K., SHACHAT, K., & SMITH, V. (1994). Preference, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. JOHANNESSON, M., & PERSSON, B. (2000). Non-reciprocal altruism in dictator games. Economics Letters, 69, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. KERR, N. L. (1999). Anonymity and social control in social dilemmas. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas (pp. 103–119). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. KOLLOCK, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. KUGIHARA, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behaviour and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and deindividuation theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 575–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. LOE, T. W., FERRELL, L., & MANSFIELD, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MATHES, E. W., & GUEST, T. A. (1976). Anonymity and group antisocial behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 257–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. MEIER, B. P., & HINSZ, V. B. (2004). A comparison of human aggression committed by groups and individuals: An interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MOFFITT, T. E., CASPI, A., RUTTER, M., & SILVA, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. POSTMES, T., & SPEARS, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SCHEIER, M. F., FENIGSTEIN, A., & BUSS, A. H. (1974). Self-awareness and physical aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SILKE, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 493–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. SPIVEY, C. B., & PRENTICE-DUNN, S. (1990). Assessing the directionality of deindividuated behavior: Effects of deindividuation, modeling, and private self-consciousness on aggressive and prosocial responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. TSUJIOKA, Y., & MURAYAMA, S. (1975). Six dimensions of value judgment [Kachikan no rokujigen]. Proceedings of the Department of Sociology, Kansai University, Japan, 7, 161–174.Google Scholar
  29. WALLACE, K. A. (1999) Anonymity. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. WHITE, M. J. (1977). Counternormative behavior as influenced by deindividuating conditions and reference group salience. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ZIMBARDO, P. G. (1969) The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237–307). Lincoln, Ne: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  32. ZIMBARDO, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil: Understanding our capacity for kindness and cruelty (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nagoya UniversityAnjo city, AichiJapan

Personalised recommendations