The Look Over Your Shoulder: Unethical Behaviour Decreases in the Physical Presence of Observers

Köbis, N., van der Lingen, S., et al., (2019, February 5).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gxu96

Abstract

Research in behavioural ethics repeatedly emphasizes the importance of others for people’s decisions to break ethical rules. Yet, in most lab experiments participants faced ethical dilemmas in full privacy settings. We conducted three experiments in which we compare such private set-ups to situations in which a second person is co-present in the lab. Study 1 manipulated whether that second person was a mere observer or co-benefitted from the participants’ unethical behaviour. Study 2 investigated social proximity between participant and observer –being a friend versus a stranger. Study 3 tested whether the mere presence of another person who cannot observe the participant’s behaviour suffices to decrease unethical behaviour. By using different behavioural paradigms of unethical behaviour, we obtain three main results: first, the presence of an observing other curbs unethical behaviour. Second, neither the payoff structure (Study 1) nor the social proximity towards the observing other (Study 2) qualifies this effect. Third, the mere presence of others does not reduce unethical behaviour if they do not observe the participant (Study 3). Implications, limitations and avenues for future research are discussed.

General Discussion

Taken together, the results of three experiments suggest that the physical presence of others reduces unethical behaviour, yet only if that other person can actually observe the behaviour. Even though the second person had no means to formally sanction wrong-doing, onlookers’ presence curtailed unethical behaviour while the local social utility (co-beneficiary or observer, Study 1) and the level of proximity (friend vs. stranger,Study 2) played a less important role. When others are merely present without being able to observe, no such attenuating effect on unethical behaviour occurs(Study 3).  Introducing the physical presence of another person to the rapidly growing stream of behavioural ethics research, our experiments provide some of the first empirical insights into the actual social aspects of unethical behaviour.

Humans are social animals who spend a substantial proportion of their time in company. Many decisions are made while being in the presence or in the gaze of others. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of lab experiments in behavioural ethics consists of individuals making decisions in isolation(for a meta-analysis, see Abeler et al., 2016). Also field experiments have sparsely looked at the impact of the tangible social elements of unethical behaviour (for a review, see Pierce & Balasubramanian, 2015). Nevertheless, the behavioural ethics literature emphasizes that appearing moral towards others is one of the main explanatory factor to explain when and how people break ethical rules (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008; Pillutla & Murnighan, 1995). Yet, so far behavioural research on the presence and observability of actual others remains sparse. Providing some of the first insights into how the physical presence of others shape our moral compass can contribute to the advancement of behavioural ethics and potentially inform the design of practical interventions. 

The research is here.

Direct application to those who practice independently.

Fla. healthcare executive found guilty in $1B Medicare fraud case

Associated Press 
Modern Healthcare
Originally published April 5, 2019

Florida healthcare executive Philip Esformes was found guilty Friday of paying and receiving kickbacks and other charges as part of the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history.

During the seven-week trial in federal court in Miami, prosecutors called Esformes a trickster and mastermind of a scheme paying bribes and kickbacks to doctors to refer patients to his nursing home network from 2009 to 2016. The fraud also included paying off a regulator to learn when inspectors would make surprise visits to his facilities, or if patients had made complaints.

Esformes owns dozens of Miami-Dade nursing facilities as well as homes in Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The info is here.

Almost All Of You Would Cheat And Steal If The People In Charge Imply It's Okay

Charlie Sorrel
www.fastcoexist.com
Originally posted February 2, 2017

Would you cheat on a test to get money? Would you steal from an envelope of cash if you thought nobody would notice? What if the person in charge implied that it was acceptable to lie and steal? That's what Dan Ariely's Corruption Experiment set out to discover. And here's a spoiler: If you're like the rest of the population, you would cheat and steal.

Ariely is a behavioral scientist who specializes in the depressingly bad conduct of humans. In this lecture clip, he details his Corruption Experiment. In it, participants are given a die, and told they can take home the numbers they throw in real dollars. The twist is that they can choose the number on the top or the bottom, and they only need to tell the person running the experiment after they throw. So, if the dice comes up with a one on top, they can claim that they picked the six on the bottom. Not surprisingly, most of the time, people picked the higher number.

The article and the video is here.

Pfizer Settles U.S. Charges of Bribing Doctors Abroad

By Katie Thomas

The New York Times

Originally published August 7, 2012

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Tuesday that it had reached a $45 million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that subsidiaries of Pfizer and Wyeth, which it acquired in 2009, bribed overseas doctors and other health care workers to increase sales of their drugs.

At the same time, the Justice Department announced that another subsidiary, Pfizer H.C.P. Corporation, had agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to settle similar charges.

The allegations, which date to 2001 and in the case of Wyeth are said to have continued after Pfizer’s acquisition of the company, involve violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids paying bribes to government officials. In many countries, doctors are government employees.

The entire story is here.

Pfizer Settlement on Foreign Bribery Charges

By Christopher Matthews
The Wall Street Journal Blogs

So that’s how it got started.

The government’s sprawling foreign bribery sweep into the pharmaceutical industry was built, in a large part, on information Pfizer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson provided about their competitors, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal Monday.

Not surprisingly, ratting on your competitors has its rewards.

Pfizer will pay more than $60 million to settle alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to people familiar with the matter. The sum could have been higher had Pfizer not cooperated with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $70 million in April to settle its FCPA probe, and likewise benefited from dropping a dime on its competitors.

The two companies’ cooperation contributed to a government investigation that has affected several major drug companies, also including Merck & Co., AstraZeneca PLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC, according to the people familiar with the investigations. The four companies last year said in regulatory filings that they received letters of inquiry from the Justice Department and the SEC. The companies have said they are cooperating with investigators.

The entire story is here.