Panagiotis Mitkidis’s research while affiliated with Aarhus University and other places

Economic dishonesty is a widespread behavior that has substantial implications on organizations and societies. Recent studies suggest that decision making in groups or commitment to other individuals can further increase such dishonesty in contrast to individual decision making. Various interventions have been suggested to curb dishonesty and the most classical economic approaches emphasize the use of punishment by focusing on both the risk (“how likely am I to get caught?”) and the severity (“what fine will be imposed?”) of punishment, respectively. However, the effects of punishments on dishonesty are mixed and it is currently unclear if punishment can be effective in collaborative settings. Here, we suggest to provide a high-powered online study (N = 630) collecting UK-based Prolific participants in which we manipulate (1) the type of payoff (whether dishonesty earns money for the individual or for the group), (2) the risk of punishment (no risk or 30% audit chance), and (3) the type of punishment (whether the individual is punished or the whole group in case of getting caught). The study will shed light on the interplay between individual or group decision making and the specifics of punishment as well as advance the understanding under which conditions punishment might be effective in curbing dishonesty.

Economic dishonesty is a widespread behavior that has substantial implications on organizations and societies. Recent studies suggest that decision making in groups or commitment to other individuals can further increase such dishonesty in contrast to individual decision making. Various interventions have been suggested to curb dishonesty and the most classical economic approaches emphasize the use of punishment by focusing on both the risk (“how likely am I to get caught?”) and the severity (“what fine will be imposed?”) of punishment, respectively. However, the effects of punishments on dishonesty are mixed and it is currently unclear if punishment can be effective in collaborative settings. Here, we suggest to provide a high-powered online study (N = 630) collecting UK-based Prolific participants in which we manipulate (1) the type of payoff (whether dishonesty earns money for the individual or for the group), (2) the risk of punishment (no risk or 30% audit chance), and (3) the type of punishment (whether the individual is punished or the whole group in case of getting caught). The study will shed light on the interplay between individual or group decision making and the specifics of punishment as well as advance the understanding under which conditions punishment might be effective in curbing dishonesty.

This 68-country survey (n = 71,922) examines how people encounter information about science and communicate about it with others, identifies cross-country differences, and tests the extent to which economic and sociopolitical conditions predict such differences. We find that social media are the most used sources of science information in most countries, except those with democratic-corporatist media systems where news media tend to be used more widely. People in collectivist societies are less outspoken about science in daily life, whereas low education is associated with higher outspokenness. Limited access to digital media is correlated with participation in public protests on science matters.

Collaboration with a partner can lead to more cheating behaviour than would occur individually, but much is unknown about the social factors contributing to this tendency. In two preregistered experiments we investigate the effects of commitment to one’s partner and reward structure on cheating in a sequential dyadic die-rolling paradigm. In Experiment 1, we manipulated two features of the social context: perceived effort investment by one’s partner and the duration of partnership. We found that participants cheated more when they perceived that their partner exerted high effort, which was significant in the short partnership condition. Moreover, participants cheated more individually post-collaboration than they had pre-collaboration, showing that collaborative cheating may carry over into subsequent behaviour. In Experiment 2, we manipulated who received each round’s rewards. Participants cheated more for joint rewards, but less when they were the reward recipients and perceived that their partner exerted high effort.

Conspiracy beliefs have been linked to perceptions of collective victimhood. We adopt an individual perspective on victimhood by investigating the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and the individual disposition to perceive and react to injustice as a victim (i.e., victim justice sensitivity; VJS). Data from two German samples (Ns = 370, 373) indicated a positive association between VJS and conspiracy mentality beyond conceptually related covariates (e.g., mistrust). In a multinational sample from 15 countries (N = 14,978), VJS was positively associated with both general and specific conspiracy beliefs (about vaccines and climate change) within countries, though these associations varied across countries. However, economic, sociopolitical, and cultural country-level factors that might explain the cross-country variability (e.g., GDP, Human Freedom Index, Individualism-Collectivism), including proxies of collective victimhood, did not moderate the studied associations. Future research should investigate the association between victimhood and conspiracy beliefs considering both intraindividual and intergroup perspectives.

Sampling data from organizations and humans associated with those organizations is essential to organizational research. Much of what we know about organizations is based on such work. However, this empirical foundation may be compromised, calling into question the field’s theoretical and empirical findings. Studies often sample data from relatively similar, narrow contexts, so a lack of sample diversity accumulates in the discipline. To conceptualize this lack of sample diversity and examine its prevalence across research publications, we conduct a pre-registered systematic review of articles from 2018 to 2022 in six top management journals and another systematic review of articles from 2013 to 2022 in six additional journals (not pre-registered). Our review assesses sample country diversity while also exploring within-country factors that are relatively under or oversampled, such as the size or industry of the sampled organization. We find a lack of sample diversity, for instance, a strong bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples and an underrepresentation of small and medium-sized enterprises in organizational research. Based on the findings and past work, we introduce a conceptual framework for sample diversity along three dimensions: the sample’s geographical, organizational, and personnel contexts. Additionally, we discuss factors that contribute to a lack of sample diversity and propose guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance it. Overall, this article seeks to improve the robustness and relevance of theoretical and empirical organizational research, thereby preventing the formulation of misinformed policies and practices in both organizational settings and broader societal contexts.

Science is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in scientists can help decision makers act on the basis of the best available evidence, especially during crises. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. We interrogated these concerns with a preregistered 68-country survey of 71,922 respondents and found that in most countries, most people trust scientists and agree that scientists should engage more in society and policymaking. We found variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual- and country-level variables, including political orientation. While there is no widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists.

Science is integral to society because it can inform individual, government, corporate, and civil society decision-making on issues such as public health, new technologies or climate change. Yet, public distrust and populist sentiment challenge the relationship between science and society. To help researchers analyse the science-society nexus across different geographical and cultural contexts, we undertook a cross-sectional population survey resulting in a dataset of 71,922 participants in 68 countries. The data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023 as part of the global Many Labs study “Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism” (TISP). The questionnaire contained comprehensive measures for individuals’ trust in scientists, science-related populist attitudes, perceptions of the role of science in society, science media use and communication behaviour, attitudes to climate change and support for environmental policies, personality traits, political and religious views and demographic characteristics. Here, we describe the dataset, survey materials and psychometric properties of key variables. We encourage researchers to use this unique dataset for global comparative analyses on public perceptions of science and its role in society and policy-making.

Honesty, defined as freedom from fraud or deception, is widely valued in many aspects of life, from personal relationships to professional settings. Yet acts of dishonesty remain widespread, including political and corporate scandals, misinformation, personal betrayal, and so on. Understanding honesty and the factors that influence it provides insights that are essential for fostering trust and combating corruption. In this review, we synthesize key findings from research on honesty, focusing on when people choose to be truthful or deceptive. We argue that although much is known about honesty in isolated, low-risk contexts, an urgent need exists to study honesty in more complex, realistic settings, such as those involving interpersonal relationships, potential sanctions, or group influences. Our proposed framework highlights understudied contexts and encourages future studies to explore settings where enforcement and social dynamics play a significant role in decision-making. To do so, we point out 66 open research questions that we find most promising to explore. By integrating insights from multiple disciplines, we aim to advance the understanding of honesty and provide a roadmap for research that can inform policies and interventions to promote integrity in society.

Despite the recognized importance of political ideology in shaping consumer behavior across various contexts, it remains unclear whether conservatives and liberals exhibit different preferences when it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Using survey data from 598 respondents in the United States, our findings indicate a positive correlation between conservatism and consumer preference for customer, supplier, and shareholder CSR domains. Conversely, conservatism correlates negatively with consumer preference for environmental and societal CSR domains. These relationships are mediated by social order and social justice. Conservatism also has a negative indirect relationship with consumer preference for employee's CSR domain through social order. Overall, our study contributes to the marketing literature by demonstrating that political ideology is related to divergent preferences for CSR, with group-related moral motives serving as mediators in these relationships.