Correction to "The interpersonal costs of dishonesty: How dishonest behavior reduces individuals' ability to read others' emotions" by Lee et al. (2019).

Reports an error in "The interpersonal costs of dishonesty: How dishonest behavior reduces individuals' ability to read others' emotions" by Julia J. Lee, Ashley E. Hardin, Bidhan Parmar, and Francesca Gino (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2019[Sep], Vol 148[9], 1557-1574). Concerns were raised regarding the findings reported in Study 3 related to data exclusions that may have affected the results. As a result, the findings reported in Study 3 cannot be relied upon. The remaining base of empirical evidence presented in this publication, excluding Study 3, supports the assertion that dishonesty reduces empathic accuracy. The authors (Lee, Hardin, Parmar, & Gino) have requested this correction. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-38884-001.) In this research, we examine the unintended consequences of dishonest behavior for one's interpersonal abilities and subsequent ethical behavior. Specifically, we unpack how dishonest conduct can reduce one's generalized empathic accuracy-the ability to accurately read other people's emotional states. In the process, we distinguish these 2 constructs from one another and demonstrate a causal relationship. The effects of dishonesty on empathic accuracy that we found were significant, but modest in size. Across 8 studies (n = 2,588), we find support for (a) a correlational and causal account of dishonest behavior reducing empathic accuracy; (b) an underlying mechanism of reduced relational self-construal (i.e., the tendency to define the self in terms of close relationships); (c) negative downstream consequences of impaired empathic accuracy, in terms of dehumanization and subsequent dishonesty; and (d) a physiological trait (i.e., vagal reactivity) that serves as a boundary condition for the relationship between dishonest behavior and empathic accuracy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Humanizing Stakeholders by Rethinking Business.

Can business humanize its stakeholders? And if so, how does this relate to moral consideration for stakeholders? In this paper we compare two business orientations that are relevant for current business theory and practice: a stakeholder orientation and a profit orientation. We empirically investigate the causal relationships between business orientation, humanization, and moral consideration. We report the results of six experiments, making use of different operationalizations of a stakeholder and profit orientation, different stakeholders (employees, suppliers, labor unions), and different participant samples. Our findings support the prediction that individual stakeholders observing a stakeholder-oriented firm see the firm's other stakeholders as more human than individual stakeholders observing a profit-oriented firm. This humanization, in turn, increases individual stakeholders' moral consideration for the firm's other stakeholders. Our findings underscore the importance of humanization for stakeholders' moral consideration for each other. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the firm as a moral community of stakeholders. Specifically, we move away from a focus on managers, and how they can make business more moral. Instead we direct attention to (other) stakeholders, and how business can make these stakeholders more moral.

The interpersonal costs of dishonesty: How dishonest behavior reduces individuals' ability to read others' emotions.

In this research, we examine the unintended consequences of dishonest behavior for one's interpersonal abilities and subsequent ethical behavior. Specifically, we unpack how dishonest conduct can reduce one's generalized empathic accuracy-the ability to accurately read other people's emotional states. In the process, we distinguish these 2 constructs from one another and demonstrate a causal relationship. The effects of dishonesty on empathic accuracy that we found were significant, but modest in size. Across 8 studies (n = 2,588), we find support for (a) a correlational and causal account of dishonest behavior reducing empathic accuracy; (b) an underlying mechanism of reduced relational self-construal (i.e., the tendency to define the self in terms of close relationships); (c) negative downstream consequences of impaired empathic accuracy, in terms of dehumanization and subsequent dishonesty; and (d) a physiological trait (i.e., vagal reactivity) that serves as a boundary condition for the relationship between dishonest behavior and empathic accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Lay theories of effortful honesty: Does the honesty-effort association justify making a dishonest decision?

Are our moral decisions and actions influenced by our beliefs about how much effort it takes to do the right thing? We hypothesized that the belief that honesty is effortful predicts subsequent dishonest behavior because it facilitates one's ability to justify such actions. In Study 1 (N = 210), we developed an implicit measure of people's beliefs about whether honesty is effortful, and we found that this lay theory predicts dishonesty. In Study 2 (N = 339), we experimentally manipulated individuals' lay theories about honesty and effort and found that an individual's lay theory that honesty is effortful increased subsequent dishonesty. In Study 3, we manipulated (Study 3a; N = 294) and measured (Study 3b; N = 153) lay theories, and then manipulated the strength of situational force that encourages dishonesty, and found that an individual's lay theory influences subsequent dishonesty only in a weak situation, where individuals have more agency to interpret the situation. This research provides novel insights into how our lay theories linking honesty and effort can help us rationalize our dishonesty, independent of whether a particular moral decision requires effort or not. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Economic Insecurity Increases Physical Pain.

The past decade has seen a rise in both economic insecurity and frequency of physical pain. The current research reveals a causal connection between these two growing and consequential social trends. In five studies, we found that economic insecurity produced physical pain and reduced pain tolerance. In a sixth study, with data from 33,720 geographically diverse households across the United States, economic insecurity predicted consumption of over-the-counter painkillers. The link between economic insecurity and physical pain emerged when people experienced the insecurity personally (unemployment), when they were in an insecure context (they were informed that their state had a relatively high level of unemployment), and when they contemplated past and future economic insecurity. Using both experimental-causal-chain and measurement-of-mediation approaches, we also established that the psychological experience of lacking control helped generate the causal link from economic insecurity to physical pain. Meta-analyses including all of our studies testing the link from economic insecurity to physical pain revealed that this link is reliable. Overall, the findings show that it physically hurts to be economically insecure.