Book contents
- Thinking about Bribery
- Thinking about Bribery
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction and Overview: Bribery and the Study of Decision Making
- Part I Structure and Mechanics of the Brain
- Part II Moral Cognition and Bribery
- Part III Psychological Insights into Bribery
- 6 Beyond Black and White: Three Decision Frames of Bribery
- 7 Effect of Reminders of Personal Sacrifice and Suggested Rationalizations on Residents’ Self-Reported Willingness to Accept Gifts: A Randomized Trial
- Part IV Norms and the Decision to Engage in Bribery
- Index
- References
7 - Effect of Reminders of Personal Sacrifice and Suggested Rationalizations on Residents’ Self-Reported Willingness to Accept Gifts: A Randomized Trial
from Part III - Psychological Insights into Bribery
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2017
Book contents
- Thinking about Bribery
- Thinking about Bribery
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction and Overview: Bribery and the Study of Decision Making
- Part I Structure and Mechanics of the Brain
- Part II Moral Cognition and Bribery
- Part III Psychological Insights into Bribery
- 6 Beyond Black and White: Three Decision Frames of Bribery
- 7 Effect of Reminders of Personal Sacrifice and Suggested Rationalizations on Residents’ Self-Reported Willingness to Accept Gifts: A Randomized Trial
- Part IV Norms and the Decision to Engage in Bribery
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Thinking about BriberyNeuroscience, Moral Cognition and the Psychology of Bribery, pp. 123 - 154Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.Google Scholar
Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review, 85, 1337–1343.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. A., Rothman, D. J., Blank, L., et al. (2006). Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA, 295(4), 429–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, E. G. (2007). Doctors and drug companies – Scrutinizing influential relationships. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(18), 1796–1797.Google Scholar
Campbell, E. G., Gruen, R. L., Mountford, J., Miller, L. G., Cleary, P. D., & Blumenthal, D. (2007). A national survey of physician-industry relationships. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(17), 1742–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chimonas, S., Brennan, T. A., & Rothman, D. J. (2007). Physicians and drug representatives: Exploring the dynamics of the relationship. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(2), 184–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dana, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA, 290(2), 252–255.Google Scholar
Fugh-Berman, A., & Ahari, S. (2007). Following the script: How drug reps make friends and influence doctors. PLoS Med, 4(4), e150.Google Scholar
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R. (2005). Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science, 308(5718), 78–83.Google Scholar
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (2007). The perspective from neuroscience. The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: A Symposium. https://services.aamc.org/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=215&cfid=1&cftoken=8BD66981-BC84-D32B-566C0DAEC4642307. Last accessed August 19, 2010.Google Scholar
Sierles, F. S., Brodkey, A. C., Cleary, L. M., et al. (2005). Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: A national survey. JAMA, 294(9), 1034–1042.Google Scholar
Steinman, M. A., Bero, L. A., Chren, M. M., & Landefeld, C. S. (2006). Narrative review: The promotion of gabapentin: An analysis of internal industry documents. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(4), 284–293.Google Scholar
Steinman, M. A., Harper, G. M., Chren, M. M., Landefeld, C. S., & Bero, L. A. (2007). Characteristics and impact of drug detailing for gabapentin. PLoS Med, 4(4), e134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wazana, A. (2000). Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA, 283(3), 373–380.Google Scholar
Zipkin, D. A., & Steinman, M. A. (2005). Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training: A thematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(8), 777–786.Google Scholar