Who's leading whom? Mutual influences in moral decision-making between leaders and subordinates over time and the role of self-interest

Ethical behavior within groups is shaped by various situational and social factors, including hierarchy and power asymmetries. We present three preregistered studies (Ntotal = 1253) examining the social dynamics that affect ethical decision-making in hierarchical dyads, employing two novel collaborative cheating tasks. In the first two studies, we find evidence that individuals mutually influenced each other's honesty across repeated interactions, even though they had different power over the outcomes. In addition, the degree and direction of these influences were moderated by the ethical make-up of these dyads. Moreover, there were congruency effects for character judgments, wherein dyads engaging in collaborative cheating behaviors tended to evaluate each other positively, particularly in terms of competence and closeness. In a third study, manipulating whether ignoring cheating is beneficial to an observer or not, we find that observers were less inclined to verify (vs. rely on) potentially dishonest reports when they themselves benefitted from dishonest reporting. In addition, individuals benefiting from dishonest behavior formed close bonds with them, evaluating them positively and contributing more money in a subsequent public goods game. This research illuminates the intricate interplay of social dynamics, ethical orientations, and motivations in hierarchical relationships, offering insights for understanding and managing ethical decision-making in various contexts.