When a bystander becomes an accomplice: Situational determinants of reactions to dishonesty

In a series of experiments, undergraduates ( N = 288) performed a task with a confederate who subsequently lied about his or her performance in order to obtain a cash bonus. The probability of bystanders' reporting the dishonesty and refusing to sign a document attesting to the confederate's score was differentially affected by situational factors and sex of the bystander, wrongdoer, and authority figure. Bystanders were most apt to report the misdeed when they were competing against rather than working either independently or cooperatively with the culprit, at least when the bonus was provided by a large corporation. In addition, females were more likely than males to report when the victim was another person rather than either a corporation or the bystander himself, and both sexes were more apt to report a female wrongdoer than a male one. Persons who initially reported the misdeed were less likely to become active accomplices than were those who failed to report it. Furthermore, less written verification of the falsehood occurred when (a) nonreporters were performing independently rather than either competing against or working cooperatively with the culprit for the bonus, and (b) a male was in an immediate position of authority.