Cheating, Trust and Social Norms: Data from Germany, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and Japan
Abstract
:1. Summary
2. Data Description
2.1. Experimental Data
2.2. Survey Data
- Attitudes towards cheating behaviors in daily life and examinations
- b.
- Trust questions
- c.
- Cognitive Reflection Tests (CRT)
3. Methods
4. Some Highlights from the Data Analysis
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mazar, N.; Ariely, D. Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. J. Public Policy Mark. 2006, 25, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerlach, P.; Teodorescu, K.; Hertwig, R. The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychol. Bull. 2019, 145, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abeler, J.; Nosenzo, D.; Raymond, C. Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 2019, 87, 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariely, D.; Garcia-Rada, X.; Gödker, K.; Hornuf, L.; Mann, H. The impact of two different economic systems on dishonesty. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2019, 59, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkelund, J.; Cherry, T.L.; McEvoy, D.M. A culture of cheating: The role of worldviews in preferences for honesty. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2022, 96, 101812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørnskov, C. Civic honesty and cultures of trust. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021, 92, 101693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huynh, T.L.; Rieger, M.O.; Wang, M. Cross-country comparison in dishonest behaviour: Germany and East Asian countries. Econ. Lett. 2022, 215, 110480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruffle, B.J.; Tobol, Y. Honest on Mondays: Honesty and the temporal separation between decisions and payoffs. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2014, 65, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talwar, V.; Murphy, S.M.; Lee, K. White lie-telling in children for politeness purposes. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2007, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heyman, G.D.; Sweet, M.A.; Lee, K. Children’s reasoning about lie-telling and truth-telling in politeness contexts. Soc. Dev. 2009, 18, 728–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Whiteley, P. Are Britons Getting More Dishonest? 2012. Available online: https://www1.essex.ac.uk/news/event.aspx?e_id=3879 (accessed on 25 September 2022).
- Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 2005, 19, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, K.S.; Oppenheimer, D.M. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2016, 11, 99. [Google Scholar]
- Herbert, J.L. A Study of Evaluation Influence in Two Child Protection Programs. Eval. Rev. 2022, 0193841X221104911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sessions | Language Code | Total | Cheaters | Average Over-Report | Average of Correct Answers |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Germany session 1 (Hochschule Trier) | DE | 35 | 15 | 10.93 | 6.13 |
2. Germany session 2 (University of Trier) | DE | 10 | 1 | 3.00 | 5.30 |
3. Germany session 3 (University of Trier) | DE | 18 | 0 | 0.00 | 7.44 |
4. Germany session 4 (University of Magdeburg) | DE | 40 | 8 | 6.00 | 6.80 |
5. Vietnam session 1 (Banking University HCMC) | VN | 20 | 4 | 1.50 | 5.65 |
6. Vietnam session 2 (Banking University HCMC) | VN | 35 | 5 | 2.20 | 6.23 |
7. Vietnam session 3 (University of Economics HCMC) | VN | 10 | 1 | 1.00 | 7.30 |
8. Vietnam session 4 (University of Economics HCMC) | VN | 35 | 6 | 6.50 | 5.80 |
9. Vietnam session 5 (Other universities) | VN | 14 | 1 | 1.00 | 5.93 |
10. Vietnam session 6 (University of Commerce) | VN | 22 | 1 | 1.00 | 6.91 |
11. Vietnam session 7 (Foreign Trade University) | VN | 33 | 3 | 1.33 | 6.03 |
12. China session 1 (University of Xiamen) | CN | 10 | 0 | 0.00 | 8.80 |
13. China session 2 (University of Xiamen) | CN | 6 | 1 | 2.00 | 5.83 |
14. China session 3 (University of Xiamen) | CN | 20 | 0 | 0.00 | 8.60 |
15. China session 4 (Zhongnan Business School) | CN | 24 | 1 | 1.00 | 6.92 |
16. China session 5 (Zhongnan Business School) | CN | 25 | 4 | 1.25 | 6.68 |
17. Taiwan session 1 (Shih Chien University) | TW | 20 | 0 | 0.00 | 5.75 |
18. Taiwan session 2 (Shih Chien University) | TW | 31 | 1 | 1.00 | 6.06 |
19. Taiwan session 3 (National Chengchi University) | TW | 15 | 1 | 3.00 | 6.40 |
20. Japan session 1 (Hiroshima City University) | JP | 35 | 3 | 2.00 | 9.83 |
21. Japan session 2 (Hiroshima City University) | JP | 35 | 2 | 3.00 | 8.37 |
Total/Average | 493 | 58 | 5.21 | 6.86 |
Variables | Explanation | Value Labels |
---|---|---|
Y | Defines the participant as a cheater or a non-cheater | 1—Cheater; 0—Non-cheater |
Yrob | Defines the participant as a cheater or a non-cheater after excluding one over-reported answer | 1—Cheater; 0—Non-cheater |
Underreport | Defines the participants who underreported the correct answers | 0—Correctly reported the number of matrices; 1—Underreported the correct answer |
Magnor | The natural logarithm of the number of over-reported answers | Continuous values |
Magrob | The natural logarithm of the number of over-reported answers after excluding one over-reported answer | Continuous values |
sessionsize | The number of participants in each session | Continuous values |
CA | The number of correct answers after excluding the cheating answers | Continuous values |
DIV | The number representing the session | Ranging from 1 to 21 sessions |
Variables | Explanation | Value Labels |
---|---|---|
Germany | Participant in Germany | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Vietnam | Participant in Vietnam | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
China | Participant in China (P.R.) | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Taiwan | Participant in Taiwan | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Japan | Participant in Japan | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Confucian | Associate themselves with Confucianism | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Buddhist | Associate themselves with Buddhism | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Taoist | Associate themselves with Taoism | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Christian | Associate themselves with Christianity | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Muslim | Associate themselves with Islam | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Marxist | Associate themselves with Marxism | 1—True and 0—Otherwise |
Variables | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 20.87 | 2.64 | 17 | 34 | 1.91 | 7.48 |
Household members | 3.66 | 1.71 | 0 | 11 | 0.11 | 3.85 |
Household income (€) | 3974.24 | 6180.19 | 0 | 60,667 | 5.42 | 41.62 |
Major (1—Economics) | 0.72 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 | −0.96 | 1.93 |
Sex (1—Male) | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 | 0.53 | 1.93 |
Germany | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 | 1.43 | 3.05 |
Vietnam | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 | 0.66 | 1.43 |
China | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0 | 1 | 1.73 | 4.00 |
Taiwan | 0.13 | 0.34 | 0 | 1 | 2.15 | 5.62 |
Japan | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 | 2.05 | 5.20 |
Confucian | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0 | 1 | 1.93 | 4.73 |
Buddhist | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.21 | 1.04 |
Taoist | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0 | 1 | 3.66 | 14.46 |
Christian | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 | 1.99 | 4.99 |
Muslim | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0 | 1 | 8.88 | 80.01 |
Marxist | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0 | 1 | 2.92 | 9.53 |
Variables | Explanation | Value Labels |
---|---|---|
Panel A: | ||
Fairness | Rank in order of importance from very important to least important. | 1—The least important; 5—The most important |
Politeness | Rank in order of importance from very important to least important. | 1—The least important; 5—The most important |
Honesty | Rank in order of importance from very important to least important. | 1—The least important; 5—The most important |
Courage | Rank in order of importance from very important to least important. | 1—The least important; 5—The most important |
Responsibility | Rank in order of importance from very important to least important. | 1—The least important; 5—The most important |
Panel B: | ||
E51 | Buying something that you know is stolen. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E52 | Keeping money that you found in the street. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E53 | Having an affair when you are married. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E54 | Failing to report accidental damage you have caused to a parked vehicle. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E55 | Avoiding a fare on public transport. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E56 | Cheating on taxes. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E57 | Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E58 | Making up things on a job application. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E59 | Motivating a child by telling them there will be a reward. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
E510 | Lying to a little child that there is a dangerous wolf. | 1—Never justified, 2—Rarely justified, 3—Sometimes justified, 4—Always justified, 5—I don’t know. |
Panel C: | ||
A | Student A—Student cheating | 1—Strongly negative, 2—Negative, 3—Neutral, 4—Positive, 5—Strongly positive. |
B | Student B—Student accepting the cheating behavior | 1—Strongly negative, 2—Negative, 3—Neutral, 4—Positive, 5—Strongly positive. |
C | Student C—Student reporting | 1—Strongly negative, 2—Negative, 3—Neutral, 4—Positive, 5—Strongly positive. |
Worry | Caught cheating during an examination in front of the whole class | 1—Not at all and 5—Extremely. |
Question | Statements | Non-Reversed or Reversed |
---|---|---|
Panel A: In-group trust | ||
1 | I trust them to keep their promises. | Non-reversed value |
2 | They will gossip about me when I am absent. | Reversed value |
3 | I am very happy to lend personal belongings (e.g., books, CDs) or money to them, when they are in need. | Non-reversed value |
4 | If one of them asks me to lend a larger amount of money and promises to return it as soon as possible, I would hesitate, because he or she might not pay me back. | Reversed value |
Panel B: Out-group trust | ||
1 | I have faith in their promises | Non-reversed value |
2 | If they act in a friendly way towards me, they might be unfriendly behind my back. | Reversed value |
3 | I would like to help them when they are in trouble, such as lending my cellphone to them to make a phone call. | Non-reversed value |
4 | If I am alone and I see somebody who seems to be injured and in need of help, I would hesitate, because I would be afraid to be tricked. | Reversed value |
Question | The Detailed Questions |
---|---|
1 | A pen and an eraser cost EUR 1.10 in total. The pen costs EUR 1.00 more than the eraser. How much does the eraser cost? _____ cents? |
2 | If it takes 5 machines 5 min to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? |
3 | In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? |
4 | If you’re running a race and you pass the person in second place, what place are you in? |
5 | A farmer had 15 sheep, and all but 8 died. How many are left? |
6 | Laura is 10 years old. Her father has three daughters. The first two are named April and May. What is the third daughter’s name? |
Variables | Explanation | Value Labels |
---|---|---|
In-group trust | The level of in-group trust from four questions | Continuous values from 1 to 7 (1—lowest trust and 7—highest trust) |
Out-group trust | The level of out-group trust from four questions | Continuous values from 1 to 7 (1—lowest trust and 7—highest trust) |
CRT | The number of correct answers on the Cognitive Reflection Tests. | Continuous values ranging from 0 to 6. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huynh, T.L.D.; Rieger, M.O.; Wang, M.; Berens, D.; Bui, D.-L.; Chen, H.-L.; Emering, T.P.; Geng, S.; Liu-Gerhards, Y.; Neumann, T.; et al. Cheating, Trust and Social Norms: Data from Germany, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and Japan. Data 2022, 7, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7100137
Huynh TLD, Rieger MO, Wang M, Berens D, Bui D-L, Chen H-L, Emering TP, Geng S, Liu-Gerhards Y, Neumann T, et al. Cheating, Trust and Social Norms: Data from Germany, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and Japan. Data. 2022; 7(10):137. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7100137
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuynh, Toan L. D., Marc Oliver Rieger, Mei Wang, David Berens, Duy-Linh Bui, Hung-Ling Chen, Tobias Peter Emering, Sen Geng, Yang Liu-Gerhards, Thomas Neumann, and et al. 2022. "Cheating, Trust and Social Norms: Data from Germany, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and Japan" Data 7, no. 10: 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7100137