Problem of Cheating

Dye, Jacob; Solomon, Ethan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1210-1

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because individuals can detect violations of social contracts (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992), cheaters developed dissimulation behaviours (Dye & Solomon, 2020;McNally & Jackson, 2013;Nakamaru & Kawata, 2004). Without the capacity to conceal cheating, cheating behaviour would have simply been eradicated during evolution (e.g., Arminjon et al, 2015).…”

Section: Direct and Indirect Cues To Estimate Cheating Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cheating is also defined as an intentional behaviour (Cosmides et al, 2010;Cosmides & Tooby, 2005) that is unfair, since it generates an undue benefit to the cheater at the expense of the fitness of the agent being cheated (Ghoul et al, 2013;Riehl & Frederickson, 2016;Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Like conspiracy, cheating is related to deception (Dye & Solomon, 2020;Ghoul et al, 2013;McNally & Jackson, 2013). However, while conspiracy relates to complex social beliefs, cheating detection revolves around a more basic mechanism at a lower level.…”

Section: Cheating Detection To Explain Conspiracy Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because decision‐making systematically emerges in an uncertain environment, individuals must be able to differentiate the signal from noise. In particular, the deception behaviours characteristic of cheaters (Dye & Solomon, 2020; Ghoul et al., 2013; McNally & Jackson, 2013), and so well as conspirators' (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009; Wood et al., 2012), induces a high level of uncertainty. Deception is the main tool of cheaters, who strive to win the evolutionary arms race with others' skill at detecting cheating (Dawkins & Krebs, 1979; Dye & Solomon, 2020).…”

Section: Cheating Detection To Explain Conspiracy Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, the deception behaviours characteristic of cheaters (Dye & Solomon, 2020; Ghoul et al., 2013; McNally & Jackson, 2013), and so well as conspirators' (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009; Wood et al., 2012), induces a high level of uncertainty. Deception is the main tool of cheaters, who strive to win the evolutionary arms race with others' skill at detecting cheating (Dawkins & Krebs, 1979; Dye & Solomon, 2020). Because individuals can detect violations of social contracts (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992), cheaters developed dissimulation behaviours (Dye & Solomon, 2020; McNally & Jackson, 2013; Nakamaru & Kawata, 2004).…”

Section: Cheating Detection To Explain Conspiracy Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deception is the main tool of cheaters, who strive to win the evolutionary arms race with others' skill at detecting cheating (Dawkins & Krebs, 1979; Dye & Solomon, 2020). Because individuals can detect violations of social contracts (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992), cheaters developed dissimulation behaviours (Dye & Solomon, 2020; McNally & Jackson, 2013; Nakamaru & Kawata, 2004). Without the capacity to conceal cheating, cheating behaviour would have simply been eradicated during evolution (e.g., Arminjon et al., 2015).…”

Section: Cheating Detection To Explain Conspiracy Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Conspiracy theories explained by a cheating detection mechanism

Aubert‐Teillaud,

Vaidis

2023

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on conspiracy theories sometimes tends to pathologise this phenomenon with a focus on the impact of (sub)pathological predictors. However, socio‐political factors also play a significant role in predicting belief in specific conspiracy theories. The aim of this article is to bridge these two perspectives through a unified cognitive mechanism. Based on an overlap between cheating and conspiracy concepts, we assume a cheating detection mechanism likely to underlie belief in conspiracy theories. Starting from the adaptive challenges of cheating detection, we explore the workings of this mechanism using signal detection theory and error management theory. The probability of cheating and decision bias according to the asymmetry of error costs in cheating detection could lead individuals to infer conspiracy theories. This functional mechanism not only explains the links between socio‐political predictors and adherence to conspiracy theories but also helps us deduce alterations that may foster a stable inclination towards believing in conspiracy theories. These alterations, in turn, offer an explanation for the links between (sub)pathological predictors and conspiracy mentality. By integrating existing literature, our proposed model sheds light on the mechanisms underlying belief in conspiracy theories and presents new predictions to guide future research.

show abstract