Prosocial Behaviour As A Function Of Inhibition On Dishonesty According To Different Psychological Resoirces Conditions

Honesty is one of the intrinsic qualities with which people will indicate plenty of relative behaviors and attitudes. Dishonest standing in opposite of honest, defined as a disposition to defraud or deceive in the Oxford Dictionary, As a result, we can investigate dishonesty through defraud or deceive. The equivalence of unethical behavior—dishonest acts not harmfully to other people but also be unacceptable social ethic. Essentially, the ego depletion could lead to the collapse or failure of the self-regulation. Prosocial behavior is an act performed with the goal of benefiting another person(Knickbock,2003), but with being characterized that does not benefit the helper and accompanied by costs(Benabou,2005). Both the prosocial behavior and the dishonesty behaviors are common in the daily life.Previous researches emphasized on the causes and factors of prosocial behavior, and treated them as outcome variable, not linking together. This study aims at exploring the restriction on the dishonesty, which is caused by different induces of prosocial behavior. Taking the individuals in different states of the psychological resources, The objects of study, it can be explored by the two ways that can induce the prosocial behavior, which are observational and experiential. In study1, the research subjects, who are without the loss of psychological resource, were tested to explore the difference on the influence of dishonesty between the observational and experiential prosocial behavior. In study2, it is investigated that to the subjects who are at the ego depletion the effect of inhibition of dishonesty behavior under the two induced ways. The results as below:1. As we predicted, both two prosocial behaviors can decrease dishonesty behavior of subjects in different states of the psychological resources effectively.2. In study1, it is found in the post test that not only the observational but also the experiential induced ways reflect significant differences compared with the control group. However, there was no significant difference between the two induced ways. In study2, compared with the observational prosocial induced group and the control group, it can be more effectively to inhibit the dishonesty behavior of the subjects in plight, so to the marginally significant in the experiential prosocial induced group. However, the similar result can’t be found in the observational prosocial induced group and the control group.3. The inhibition effects of prosocial behavior on dishonesty behavior of gender differences do not exist. In study1, the main effect of the sex test is not significant, and there is no interaction between the gender and the prosocial induced groups. The same result in gender can exist in study2. Therefore, the difference brought by gender may be eliminated by the prosocial experiences.