@article{WrightWachs2022,
  author    = {Wright, Michelle F. and Wachs, Sebastian},
  title     = {Adolescents' emotional reactions for not intervening in cyberbullying as moderators in the longitudinal association between witnessing cyberbullying and health issues},
  series = {Current psychology},
  journal   = {Current psychology},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1046-1310},
  doi       = {10.1007/s12144-022-03773-w},
  pages     = {19378 -- 19385},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Not much is known about how bystanders' emotional reactions after not intervening in cyberbullying might impact their health issues. Narrowing this gap in the literature, the present study focused on examining the moderating effects of emotional reactions (i.e., guilt, sadness, anger) after not intervening in cyberbullying on the longitudinal relationship between cyberbullying bystanding and health issues (i.e., subjective health complaints, suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-harm). Participants were 1,067 adolescents between 12 and 15 years old included in this study (M-age = 13.67; 51\% girls). The findings showed a positive association between Time 1 cyberbullying bystanding and Time 2 health issues. Guilt moderated the positive relationships among Time 1 cyberbullying bystanding, Time 2 subjective health complaints, suicidal ideation, and non-suicidal self-harm. Time 1 sadness also moderated the relationship between Time 1 cyberbullying bystanding and Time 2 suicidal ideation and non-suicidal self-harm. However, anger did not moderate any of the associations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchroederAbeFatfouta2018,
  author    = {Schr{\"o}der-Abe, Michela and Fatfouta, Ramzi},
  title     = {Shades of narcissistic dishonesty},
  series = {Journal of economic psychology : research in economic psychology and behavioral economics},
  volume    = {71},
  journal   = {Journal of economic psychology : research in economic psychology and behavioral economics},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0167-4870},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.003},
  pages     = {148 -- 158},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Honesty is crucial to navigate the social realm, yet certain individuals - those high in narcissism - tend to engage in dishonesty. In two studies (total N = 910), we aimed to zoom in on the link between grandiose versus vulnerable narcissism and dishonesty, further clarifying the role of the key self-conscious emotions shame and guilt in mediating this link. Using behavioral indicators of dishonesty, namely, actual cheating in a math task (Study 1) and a coin-tossing task (Study 2), we consistently found that the relationship between grandiose narcissism and cheating was positively mediated by guilt, indicating that grandiose narcissists engaged in more dishonest behavior due to a lack of guilt. Furthermore, the relationship between vulnerable narcissism and cheating was negatively mediated by shame, but only when task success depended on performance (Study 1) rather than luck (Study 2). Results underscore the importance of differentiating between distinct facets of narcissism and highlight the role of self-conscious emotions in the narcissism-dishonesty link.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KritikosTan2016,
  author    = {Kritikos, Alexander and Tan, Jonathan H. W.},
  title     = {Influence in the face of impunity},
  series = {Economics letters},
  volume    = {141},
  journal   = {Economics letters},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {0165-1765},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.econlet.2016.02.020},
  pages     = {119 -- 121},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We compare dictator and impunity games. In impunity games, responders can reject offers but to no payoff consequence to proposers. Because proposers act under impunity, we should expect the same behavior across games, but experimentally observed behavior varies. Responders indeed exercise the rejection option. This threat psychologically influences proposers. Some proposers avoid rejection by offering nothing. Others raise offers, but only when they receive feedback from responders. Responders lose this influence in the absence of feedback. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}