Citation: Houdek, P., Rybáková, N. (2017). Impulsiveness of Roma minority and Czech majority and its psychological, demographic and socioeconomic correlations. Acta Oeconomica Pragensia. ISSN: 0572-3043 [in Czech as: Impulzivita Romů a Čechů a její psychologické, demografické a socioekonomické koreláty,
Citation: Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F.,… Houdek, P.,… & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across sample and setting.Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. ISSN: 2515-2459.
Citation: Novakova, J., Houdek, P., Jolič, J., Flegr, J. (2017). Experimental assessment of cheating prevalence in the Czech Republic as an example of a post-communist country. Deviant Behavior. ISSN: 0163-9625 [pdf | html]
Citation: Vranka, M., Becková, A., & Houdek, P. (2017). Is Humblebragging an Effective Impression Management Tactic in a Job Interview?. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2FBRZ
This essay is a critical perspective of the applicability of behavioral ethics in business and policy interventions. I summarize a series of proposed interventions to increase people’s honesty, inspired by ethical dissonance theory, such as increasing salience of moral norms, visibility, and self-engagement. Although I agree that behavioral ethics could offer simple, low-cost interventions with the potential of reducing unethical behavior (not only) in organizations, there are several risks and methodological limitations not sufficiently discussed. The interventions thus could eventually lead to weaker positive impacts or even long-term negative consequences. I suggest several alternative approaches to decrease dishonesty such as making the moral choice easier, implementing salient accountability, and removing dishonesty temptations and dishonest employees. The article concludes with a warning that unrealistic expectations may damage the credibility of behavioral ethics.
Citation: Houdek, P. (2017). Is Behavioral Ethics Ready for Giving Business and Policy Advice? Journal of Management Inquiry. ISSN: 1056-4926. doi: 10.1177/1056492617712894
The aim of this perspective article is to show that current experimental evidence on factors influencing dishonesty has limited external validity. Most of experimental studies is built on random assignments, in which control/experimental groups of subjects face varied sizes of the expected reward for behaving dishonestly, opportunities for cheating, means of rationalizing dishonest behavior etc., and mean groups’ reactions are observed. The studies have internal validity in assessing the causal influence of these and other factors, but they lack external validity in organizational, market and other environments. If people can opt into or out of diverse real-world environments, an experiment aimed at studying factors influencing real-life degree of dishonesty should permit for such an option. The behavior of such self-selected groups of marginal subjects would probably contain a larger level of (non)deception than the behavior of average people. The article warns that there are not many studies that would enable self-selection or sorting of participants into varying environments, and that limits current knowledge of the extent and dynamics of dishonest and fraudulent behavior. The article focuses on suggestions how to improve dishonesty research, especially how to avoid the experimenter demand bias.
Citation: Houdek, P. (2017). A Perspective on Research on Dishonesty: Limited External Validity Due to the Lack of Possibility of Self-Selection in Experimental Designs.Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1566). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01566
In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of -0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation.
Citation: Bouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Aczel, B.,… Houdek, P.,… Wollbrant, C. E. (2017). Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 527-542. doi:10.1177/1745691617693624
Citation: Houdek, P. (2017). Rewards for Falling Off a Horse: Bad Corporate Governance Is Enabling Managers to Receive Pay for Luck. Organizational Dynamics. ISSN: 0090-2616. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.05.004
This essay discusses the fraud triangle, or how factors such as opportunity to cheat, motivation to cheat or ability to rationalize or justify dishonest behavior lead to dishonesty. The fraud triangle is applied on behavior of professionals active in fields such as medicine, education, research and science or clergy. Evidence shows that even in these fields, which attract more altruistic individuals, the fraud triangle factors predicts emergence of behavior in breach of ethical standards. In the conclusion several measures for reducing dishonesty are discussed. Disciplines such as forensic economics or behavioral ethics are emphasized to provide wider variety of tools to detect and reduce dishonest behavior.
Citation: Houdek, P. (2017). Professional Identity and Dishonest Behavior. Society. ISSN: 0147-2011. doi: 10.1007/s12115-017-0132-y
We argue that individuals systematically interpret sequences of events in a causal manner. The aim of this article is to show that people do so even if they are aware of the stochastic nature of the respective sequence. The bias can explain some anomalous behaviour of investors in financial markets. Small as well as professional investors may illusorily perceive causality of former random success and future yield. Laboratory experiments testing the interpretation of stochastically occurring events in financial designs as well as analyses of real trading data from financial markets confirm that investors indeed interpret (quasi)random events casually; they make incorrect predictions and they egocentrically allocate responsibility for their success. The causality illusion induces overconfidence, inefficient investment and risk seeking. In the conclusion, we discuss factors that may limit effects of the causality illusion and suggest future areas for research.
Citation: Houdek, P., Koblovský, P., Plaček, J., & Smrčka, L. (2017). Causality Illusion and Overconfidence in Predicting (Quasi)Stochastic Events. Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, 25(1), 51–63. doi: 10.18267/j.aop.568 [in Czech as: Iluze kauzality a nadměrná důvěra ve schopnost predikce (kvazi)náhodných finančních událostí: