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

## TL;DR

This study investigates whether people act dishonestly when the victim is abstract versus concrete, but finds mixed results.

## Contribution

The study provides a pre-registered test of the social harm account of intuitive dishonesty.

## Key findings

- Time pressure did not significantly affect cheating behavior.
- Findings contradicted previous studies regarding harm-type manipulation effects.

## 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.