Done but Not Published: The Dissertation Journeys of Roy J. Lewicki and J. Keith Murnighan

Shirli   Kopelman; Anne L. Lytle; Cynthia S. Wang; Roy J.  Lewicki; J.  Keith  Murnighan; Max   Bazerman

Article | Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

Done but Not Published: The Dissertation Journeys of Roy J. Lewicki and J. Keith Murnighan

by Shirli Kopelman, Anne L. Lytle, Cynthia S. Wang, Roy J. Lewicki, J. Keith Murnighan and Max Bazerman

Abstract

This article explores the tumultuous path to publication that begins for many of us with trying to publish our dissertation. We invited Roy J. Lewicki and J. Keith Murnighan—the 2013 and 2015 recipients of the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM) Lifetime Achievement Award—to reflect on this process, as neither of them were successful in getting their dissertation articles published. We also asked them to reflect on the twists and turns of academic publishing, and we asked Max Bazerman to integrate these reflections. Together, we hope to spark generative conversations that will enable scholars to successfully navigate their academic careers.

Keywords: Higher Education; Research; Personal Development and Career; Business Education; Education Industry; Publishing Industry;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Kopelman, Shirli, Anne L. Lytle, Cynthia S. Wang, Roy J. Lewicki, J. Keith Murnighan, and Max Bazerman. "Done but Not Published: The Dissertation Journeys of Roy J. Lewicki and J. Keith Murnighan." Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 8, no. 4 (November 2015): 261–271.

Who should get a ventilator if there aren’t enough to go around? Research on decision making leads to three concrete guidelines that policy-makers and physicians can use to make fair choices when allocating scarce, life-saving resources. The key to making fair and ethical choices is to assure that decisions are made through an impartial process.

Article | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Signing at the Beginning vs at the End Does Not Decrease Dishonesty

Ariella Kristal, A.V. Whillans, Max Bazerman, Francesca Gino, Lisa Shu, Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely

Honest reporting is essential for society to function well. However, people frequently lie when asked to provide information, such as misrepresenting their income to save money on taxes. A landmark finding published in PNAS (Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, and Bazerman, 2012, “Signing at the Beginning Makes Ethics Salient and Decreases Dishonest Self-reports in Comparison to Signing at the End”) provided evidence for a simple way of encouraging honest reporting: asking people to sign a veracity statement at the beginning instead of at the end of a self-report form. Since this finding was published, various government agencies have adopted this practice. However, in this project, we failed to replicate this result. Across five conceptual replications (N = 4,559) and one highly powered, pre-registered, direct replication (N = 1,235) conducted with the authors of the original paper, we observed no effect of signing first on honest reporting. Given the policy applications of this result, it is important to update the scientific record regarding the veracity of these results.

Keywords: Morality; nudge; policy-making; replication; honesty; Moral Sensibility; Behavior; Policy;

Citation:

Kristal, Ariella, A.V. Whillans, Max Bazerman, Francesca Gino, Lisa Shu, Nina Mazar, and Dan Ariely. "Signing at the Beginning vs at the End Does Not Decrease Dishonesty." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, no. 13 (March 31, 2020). View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

Faculty & Research

Done but Not Published: The Dissertation Journeys of Roy J. Lewicki and J. Keith Murnighan

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author