The effects of competition on the nature of cheating behavior

Rigdon, Mary L.; D’Esterre, Alexander P.

doi:10.4284/0038-4038-2012.301

Cited by 42 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This contrasts with Rigdon and D'Esterre (2015) who found that people lie less when reporting the performance of another subject than when reporting their own performance. However, our results become consistent with theirs when we remove the experimenter's scrutiny (as in their study), as in this condition subjects report higher numbers for themselves than for their opponent in absolute terms.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…However, Rigdon and D'Esterre (2015) have found evidence that individuals misreport more their own performance than the performance of another person, in both competitive and noncompetitive settings. Similarly, we conjecture that in our experiment subjects are more likely to overreport their own number than underreport their opponent's number, because harming directly another person may be perceived as aggressive.…”

Section: Behavioral Conjecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unethical Behavior and Group Identity in Contests

Benistant¹,

Villeval

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Using a real-effort experiment, we study whether group identity affects unethical behavior in a contest game. We vary whether minimal group identity is induced or not, whether individuals have to report their own outcome or the outcome of their competitor, and whether pairs of competitors share the same group identity or not. We show that individuals misreport in the same proportion and to the same extent by inflating their outcome or by decreasing their opponent's outcome, except when any possible scrutiny by the experimenter is removed. Regardless of the possibility of scrutiny by the experimenter, misreporting is affected neither by the competitor's group identity nor by the individual's beliefs about others' misreporting behavior. This suggests that in competitive settings, unethical behavior is mainly driven by an unconditional desire to win. Keywords:Lying, sabotage, group identity, competition, experiment JEL codes:C92, M54, D63 Unethical Behavior and Group Identity in Contests * Julien Benistant† and Marie Claire Villeval ‡ January 2019Abstract Using a real-effort experiment, we study whether group identity affects unethical behavior in a contest game. We vary whether minimal group identity is induced or not, whether individuals have to report their own outcome or the outcome of their competitor, and whether pairs of competitors share the same group identity or not.We show that individuals misreport in the same proportion and to the same extent by inflating their outcome or by decreasing their opponent's outcome, except when any possible scrutiny by the experimenter is removed. Regardless of the possibility of scrutiny by the experimenter, misreporting is affected neither by the competitor's group identity nor by the individual's beliefs about others' misreporting behavior.This suggests that in competitive settings, unethical behavior is mainly driven by an unconditional desire to win.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Behavioral Conjecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unethical Behavior and Group Identity in Contests

Benistant¹,

Villeval

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all treatments the matrix search task was completed by participants in a tournament setting as described above (Rigdon and D'Esterre ). In order to examine the impact of priming competitiveness on cheating in a tournament setting, three conditions vary the scrambled sentence task: N one , N eutral and C ompetitive .…”

Section: Design and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rigdon and D'Esterre () report results on how competition impacts both the level and nature of cheating. Prior to completing the matrix search task, participants were randomly and anonymously matched with one other person: only the person with the highest reported score would receive the piece‐rate payment for the task; the other would receive zero.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, we have introduced an experimental procedure to activate the concept of competitiveness implicitly without having subjects consciously reflect on it. Second, following the priming manipulation, we have used a standard matrix search task (Mazar, Amir, and Ariely ) to examine the effect on the nature of cheating in a naturally competitive environment, a tournament setting (Rigdon and D'Esterre ). Participants complete the matrix search task in pairs with only the person being reported to have solved the most matrices being paid for the effort expended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sabotaging Another: Priming Competition Increases Cheating Behavior in Tournaments

Rigdon

D’Esterre²

2017

Southern Economic Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trophy. Goal. Dominated. Does priming individuals with competitive concepts such as these influence the temptation to cheat? We utilize a standard laboratory cheating task in a tournament setting and test whether nonconscious priming impacts the nature of cheating behavior. The results demonstrate an asymmetry in a winner‐take‐all setting: a competitive prime does not increase cheating to improve one's own outcome, but does significantly increase the willingness of an individual to sabotage a competitor.

show abstract

When Seeking the Best Brings Out the Worst in Consumers: Understanding the Relationship between a Maximizing Mindset and Immoral Behavior

Goldsmith

Roux²,

2017

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers often adopt a goal to choose "the best" option: be it the best value for their money, the product with the highest quality, or the product that offers the best match to their idiosyncratic preferences. Prior work has characterized this orientation as a "maximizing mindset," and has demonstrated that the adoption of a maximizing mindset can lead to both positive and negative consequences for the self. However, to date, little is known about if a maximizing mindset might have consequences beyond the self (i.e., for others and/ or society). The current article addresses this gap by demonstrating that consumers who adopt a maximizing mindset (vs. a neutral mindset) are subsequently more likely to engage in immoral behaviors. Further, we demonstrate that this effect occurs because a maximizing mindset activates cognitions related to scarcity. In doing so, the current research offers a more nuanced understanding of the psychological and behavioral consequences of a maximizing mindset and identifies a maximizing mindset as an antecedent to cognitions related to scarcity and immoral behaviors.

show abstract

The effects of competition on the nature of cheating behavior

Cited by 42 publications

References 23 publications

Unethical Behavior and Group Identity in Contests

Unethical Behavior and Group Identity in Contests

Sabotaging Another: Priming Competition Increases Cheating Behavior in Tournaments

When Seeking the Best Brings Out the Worst in Consumers: Understanding the Relationship between a Maximizing Mindset and Immoral Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About