↓ Skip to main content

How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor–Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor–Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00527
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Mackinger, Eva Jonas

Abstract

When confronted with important questions we like to rely on the advice of experts. However, uncertainty can occur regarding advisors' motivation to pursue self-interest and deceive the client. This can especially occur when the advisor has the possibility to receive an incentive by recommending a certain alternative. We investigated how the possibility to pursue self-interest led to explicit strategic behavior (bias in recommendation and transfer of information) and to implicit strategic behavior (bias in information processing: evaluation and memory). In Study 1 explicit strategic behavior could be identified: self-interested advisors recommended more often the self-serving alternative and transferred more self-interested biased information to their client compared to the advisor without specific interest. Also deception through implicit strategic behavior was identified: self-interested advisors biased the evaluation of information less in favor of the client compared to the control group. Self-interested advisors also remembered conflicting information regarding their self-interest worse compared to advisors without self-interest. In Study 2 beside self-interest we assessed accountability which interacted with self-interest and increased the bias: when accountability was high advisor's self-interest led to higher explicit strategic behavior (less transfer of conflicting information), and to higher implicit strategic behavior (devaluated and remembered less conflicting information). Both studies identified implicit strategic behavior as mediator which can explain the relation between self-interest and explicit strategic behavior. Results of both studies suggest that self-interested advisors use explicit and implicit strategic behavior to receive an incentive. Thus, advisors do not only consciously inform their clients "self-interested," but they are influenced unconsciously by biased information processing - a tendency which even increased with high accountability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Switzerland 1 5%
Unknown 19 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 32%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 7 32%
Psychology 5 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2015.
All research outputs
#12,672,030
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,361
of 29,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,732
of 244,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#204
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.