Intuitive or deliberative dishonesty: The effect of abstract versus concrete victim.

Jiayu Cheng, Haoran Wang, Yue Liu, Chongxiang Wang, Qingzhou Sun, Bruno Verschuere, Liyang Sai

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jiayu ChengDepartment of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8065-9232

Haoran WangDepartment of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.

Yue LiuDepartment of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.

Chongxiang WangDepartment of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5109-2254

Qingzhou SunSchool of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China.

Bruno VerschuereDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6161-4415

Liyang SaiDepartment of Psychology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-8132

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been ongoing debate over whether people are intuitively honest or intuitively dishonest. A recent social harm account was proposed to address this debate: dishonesty is intuitive when cheating inflicts harm on an abstract other while honesty is intuitive when cheating inflicts harm on a concrete other. This pre-registered and well-powered study (n = 764) aims to directly test this account by using a time pressure manipulation. Specifically, we examined whether time pressure (versus self-paced conditions) would lead to increased cheating depending on whether the harmed party was concrete or abstract. The results showed no significant effect of time pressure on cheating behavior. However, the harm-type manipulation produced findings that contradicted those reported in previous studies. Given the low replication rates and reliance on controversial experimental manipulations in this area, our findings underscore the importance of further pre-registered research to rigorously evaluate the roles of time pressure and social harm in shaping intuitive (dis)honesty.

Indexed as

DeceptionIntuitionHumansTime Pressure

Identifiers

PMID41576063

DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0340083

PMCPMC12829808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.