Framing effects and social context as determinants of dishonest behavior

Abstract This study investigates how framing (gain vs. loss), social context (online vs. in-person) and gender influence dishonest behavior (DB). Based on Prospect Theory and Social Distance Theory, we hypothesized that loss framing and online settings would increase DB. A total of 238 participants completed the Difference Spotting Task, under both framing conditions in either an online or in-person setting. Contrary to the hypothesis, framing had no significant effect on DB, suggesting that loss aversion does not universally drive cheating, potentially due to context-dependent factors like task design or low stakes. In contrast, DB was significantly higher in online settings, supporting the role of anonymity and social distance in reducing norm adherence. While women cheated more frequently, no significant gender differences were found in the extent of DB or its interaction with other factors. Social context appears more influential than framing in shaping DB.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Psychology
Published
2025-12-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00494-6
Primary Topic
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Framing effects and social context as determinants of dishonest behavior

Sabine Schaefer, Werner Pitsch, Kai Leisge, Luisa Welsch
Discover Psychology
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
article

Framing effects and social context as determinants of dishonest behavior

Sabine Schaefer, Werner Pitsch, Kai Leisge, Luisa Welsch
article en

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates how framing (gain vs. loss), social context (online vs. in-person) and gender influence dishonest behavior (DB). Based on Prospect Theory and Social Distance Theory, we hypothesized that loss framing and online settings would increase DB. A total of 238 participants completed the Difference Spotting Task, under both framing conditions in either an online or in-person setting. Contrary to the hypothesis, framing had no significant effect on DB, suggesting that loss aversion does not universally drive cheating, potentially due to context-dependent factors like task design or low stakes. In contrast, DB was significantly higher in online settings, supporting the role of anonymity and social distance in reducing norm adherence. While women cheated more frequently, no significant gender differences were found in the extent of DB or its interaction with other factors. Social context appears more influential than framing in shaping DB.

Discover PsychologyVol. 5(1)
Saarland University (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Framing effects and social context as determinants of dishonest behavior — Sabine Schaefer, Werner Pitsch, et al. · Discover Psychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS