Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The flow diagram of the experiment.

In the matching phase, participants will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions (time pressure with concrete victim, time pressure with abstract victim, self-paced with concrete victim, and self-paced with abstract victim). A) the participants could complete the task and report the first dice point with no time limit. B) participants need to complete the task and report the number of the first die within 13 seconds.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

A) Violin plot of rating scores (1 = not affected at all; to 5 = extremely affected) on manipulation check questions for time-pressure and self-paced conditions, concrete harm and abstract harm conditions.

Rectangular boxes represent the interquartile range of the distribution; the horizontal line in the middle represents the mean. The width of each plot shows the density of the data. B) The bar chart of the cheating rates in the four conditions. C) Distribution histogram of time used by time pressure group and self-paced group across different stages of the task.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Hierarchical logistic regression model for predictors of cheating behavior.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

A) The heatmap of the first toss point and the report toss point.

B) The ratio of cheating to honesty across the participants over morality identity under time pressure and self-paced conditions. C) The bar chart of the cheating magnitude in the four conditions.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Hierarchical linear regression model for predictors of cheating magnitude.

More »

Table 2 Expand