Abstract
Research across disciplines suggests that bad is stronger than good and that individuals punish deception more than they reward honesty. However, methodological issues in previous research limit the latter conclusion. Three experiments resolved these issues and consistently found the opposite pattern: Individuals rewarded honesty more frequently and intensely than they punished deception. Experiment 2 extended these counterintuitive findings by revealing a divergence between evaluation and behavior: Evaluative reactions to deception were stronger than those to honesty, but behavioral intentions in response to honesty were stronger than those in response to deception. In addition, individuals wanted to avoid deceivers more than they wanted to approach honest actors. Experiment 3 found that punishment, but not reward, frequencies were sensitive to costs. Moderated-mediation tests revealed the role of different psychological mechanisms: Negative affect drove punishments, whereas perceived trustworthiness drove rewards. Overall, bad appears to be stronger than good in influencing psychological reactions, but good seems to be stronger than bad in influencing behavior.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 634-644 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Psychological Science |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2009 |
Funding
This research was based in part on the doctoral dissertation submitted by Cynthia Wang to Northwestern University and has benefited from the comments of committee members David Austen-Smith and Katherine Phillips. We thank Katie Dover-Taylor, Laura Howland, and Will Thomson for their research assistance and Chris Bauman, Deborah-Anna Reznek, Niro Sivanathan, Leigh Thompson, and Jennifer Whitson for their helpful comments. This work benefited from the generous financial support by the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg School of Management.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Psychology