Why Winners Become Cheaters (washingtonpost.com)

JoeyRox writes: A new study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reveals a paradoxical aspect of human behavior — people who win in competitive situations are more likely to cheat in the future. In one experiment, 86 students were split up into pairs and competed in a game where cheating was impossible. The students were then rearranged into new pairs to play a second game where cheating was possible. The result? Students who won the first game were much more likely to cheat at the second game. Additional experiments indicated that cheating was also more likely if students simply recalled a memory of winning in the past. The experiments further demonstrated that subsequent cheating was more likely in situations where the outcome of previous competitions was determined by merit rather than luck.

Comments

Makes sense

[tsotha]

That makes sense to me. If you win something based on merit it becomes part of your identity. "I'm a fast runner" or "I'm good at math." That will put you under pressure (internal and external) to make sure it happens.

Re:Makes sense

[tsotha]

Yes, but I doubt many cheaters expect to get caught.

Re:Makes sense

[Sique]

It is more complicated than that. It's not "I'm a fast runner", that seems to trigger the cheating. It's the "I'm a faster runner than others". In the article at the Washington Post, there is a description of the experimental set-up. Games that are a battle against yourself (like a trivia game or playing the lottery) don't let people cheat afterwards. Games that are a battle against an opponent do.

It seems the experience of winning against someone else which causes you to feel entitled and to cheat the next time to ensure your next win. And then you get into a spiral of cheating, winning, cheating, winning etc.pp., we know so well from professional sports or successful businessmen with shady ethics.

Re:Makes sense

[Archtech]

Or, to put it another way, winning can be addictive. That makes very good sense.

Re:Makes sense

[jafiwam]

This is how politicians seem to work. It's how big businesses seem to work. This research may be very important in the long run.

Re:Makes sense

[Opportunist]

You think that's a downer? Imagine what "I cheated and STILL lost" could do to your ego.

Re:Makes sense

[alvinrod]

People are just horrible at fully imagining all of the negative consequences of their actions. We tend to have an optimistic view and tunnel in on how greats things will be when everything goes according to plan instead of thinking about all of the ways our plans might fail. It's a large part of the reason why things are rarely done on time or within budget.

Re:Makes sense

[CastrTroy]

This sounds like why there are also so many bugs in software. I find that the more I learn about software development, the more difficult everything becomes. Once you start thinking about all the edge cases, and how many ways there are for something to break, every project becomes more difficult. Designing software is like designing a bridge, except you have to worry about how your bridge performs when people decide drive over it backwards. Somehow it will end up being the designer's fault when something goes terribly wrong. If I could just design a web application without worrying about how people are going to try to find security holes and steal all the data I would be a happy man. Does the guy who designs bridges have to make considerations to ensure it can't be attacked by terrorists?

Re:Makes sense

[stabiesoft]

Ah, but that is in our current world of consequences. Example, a friend is a teacher. Recently, a girl pulled a knife on another girl and threatened to slice her neck. Punishment = 2 day suspension. He jokingly said if she would have killed her that would have up'ed it to a 4 day suspension. So when I was in school, knife = expulsion. Another example, a pregnant girl disappeared when I was in school and may or may not have returned due to shame. Now, again, my friend is a teacher and I could not believe it, but now, the class will often go en mass to the hospital after delivery to have a party for the young mother. Oh, and of course child care at the school. So we went from shame to be a pregnant high school girl to lets have a party, and I have my badge of honor. Guess what, more high school moms. Who would have thought?

Re:Makes sense

[jellomizer]

Because if cheating is done right, it is hard to proove. Most competitions allow a degree of "Failure" in the game. So if you are running a race, while you are not suppose to come in contact with the person you are racing with. However most judges will not be hardass enough to discredit an accidental hit. However if you are going to cheat, you may "Accidentally" hit your biggest threat just to get him off his stride.

Now this is cheating, however it is hard to prove.
That and sportsmanship lesson one, was to publically not be a sore loser. So saying he cheated is often the call of a sore loser.

Maybe winning is adictive

[istartedi]

Winning is a natural high, right? People steal to get high. Why not cheat?

Applies to college students only

[mveloso]

Like a whole bunch of psychological studies, it only applies to college students who incur no costs.

Re:Applies to college students only

[Maxo-Texas]

Like many psychological studies, I'd like to see the results replicated in different countries and different settings.

Bernie Madoff

[EmperorOfCanada]

From what I read Bernie Madoff had a compulsion for consistency. When he played golf (and he was pretty good) he would apparently turn in an 80 every time. So I suspect that the vagaries of the market just went against his grain. This then begs the question. Did he run a Ponzi scheme because he was a crook, or did he pretty much have the wrong compulsion for the wrong industry.

I am pretty sure that I see this in other areas. For instance I was at an industrial company some years ago where an IT guy cut himself on the inside of a computer to the point where it may or may not have needed stitches. The company people freaked out. They were hinting that they would even bribe him not to report it. This got my curiosity going thinking that this injury would cause their worker's compensation rates to go up, or that it would spawn some kind of outsized investigation, but then a secratary said something like, "No, Dougie is obsessed with the fact that it has been 400 days accident free." I asked if that were true and she said it wasn't and that now for any minor injury he would hand out a week's vacation to not report it. So there was a huge sign that said 400 days accident free and everyone knew it was a lie except for Dougie's superiors.

So like most things in life I suspect that most people lie somewhere on a spectrum ranging from, "I couldn't give a shit about cheating, to, look at me the most consistent winner in the universe."

So while Madoff might have been scared that a bad report would result in fewer sales and higher redemptions, it was probably a situation where he would feel that he had somehow personally failed if he were to have to say that this year was 11% instead of 12%.

Re:Bernie Madoff

[EmperorOfCanada]

To understand the why can improve detection and prevention. A different ponzi scheme from the same time frame, Stanford, smells more like old fashioned greed. I have talked with Enron people and they told me that there was this insane culture of WIN. Apparently a huge amount of time was spent doing sporty things that were competitive. They both were driven to compete at all levels, but also hired and promoted people who were driven to win. So while greed and broken moral compasses were at work there, they were pushed to take risks so that they could be winners. Risks as in things with prison as a penalty, not just financial risks.

So detecting and preventing Madoff, Stanford, and Enron from both the perspective of regulators and investors it is good to understand the stories behind these goons.

This is why I love science articles like the above. They both help shape my world view and can confirm/refute some observations that I have made.

For instance an interesting one that I have seen is when people have regular access to insider information and make many successful trades, they tend to delude themselves into thinking that they are great traders. Then when the inside information supply dries up they often continue to trade with the same apparent reckless abandon that was previously supported by ill-gotten information. The consequences are pretty straightforward.

Be Skeptical of Priming Studies

[dcollins]

Remember: "Priming studies" (like here: being reminded of prior winning makes you more like to cheat) are notorious for showing anything under the sun and then failing to be reproducible later.

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman called priming studies the "poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_%28psychology%29#Criticism

In the Many Labs Replication Project, the two "priming studies" landed at the very bottom, showing no evidence of any real effect in the replication trials:

https://osf.io/wx7ck/

Re:Be Skeptical of Priming Studies

[JoeyRox]

Are you saying the fact that the two games were run sequentially is itself priming the outcome of the second game? Or are you referring specifically to the other experiment where students were asked to think about a past winning experience?

The question the experiment was designed to answer was "Are winner's of previous competitions more likely to cheat in subsequent competitions?". How can a controlled study be conducted to answer this question unless the subjects are subjected to winning (and losing)? And if this cheating inclination does occur outside the confines of this experiment what's different in the real world vs the experiment? The period of time that elapses between winning one competition and competing in another?

Intelligence

[Xenna]

Perhaps it's just a matter of intelligence. The first game was won by the smart players. In the second game the smart ones saw the cheating opportunity and took it (perhaps even correctly deducig that that was the point of the experiment).

The stupid players saw no opportunity and no point.

So the experiment is interesting but the conclusions could be all wrong,..

From personal experience...

[Nabeel_co]

I can say that I've noticed this desire in myself, although never acted on it... But in games where I know I have a skill advantage, and have won before, the temptation to cheat, as a short cut measure, becomes strong. The mentality is one of "well, I know I'm capable of getting to that point, so is it really cheating if I just skip to that part?" Yes, yes it is. And I have to remind myself of that each. freaking. time.

I thought It was just me, but it turns out to be human nature I guess?

Worse: it's reporting bias

[martin-boundary]

This paper is a clear candidate for reporting bias.

Reporting bias occurs when the opposite result isn't ever reported. So you either see an article or you don't. If you see the article, that's because the result was "surprising". If you don't see the article, that's because it wasn't "interesting".

Trouble is, every possible result, no matter how "surprising", can occur just by chance if you do enough experiments, even if the truth isn't "interesting". Statistics works like that.

So if you keep doing all sorts of different experiments until you find one that randomly happens to look "surprising", then publish it, but never talk about all the other experimental ideas that didn't pan out, you've got yourself a case of reporting bias.

Ask yourself this: what legitimate scientific question is being answered here, and what journal and media outlets are likely to publish the opposite finding?

Re:Well yeah

[arth1]

I agree with this.
Winning one-on-one competitions is an individual skill. So is cheating. Following rules is a cooperative or social skill.
As a hunter, cheating is a valuable skill. It doesn't matter whether you catch the game by being better, or by cheating, e.g. with a snare. When you and the other hunter aren't going to share, i.e. it's a competition, what matters is that you win. Preferably every time. If your competitor's family starves, that's a win for your offspring.

If hunting together, the situation becomes different. Team sports may yield different results.

Also - what is the consequence of being caught? I would think that winners of any game that requires thinking would favor those with a rational mind. Who would also be the ones to factor in the cost of getting caught. If that is zero, well, what is the advantage to not cheating?

Re:Lance Armstrong

[HornWumpus]

Competitive cycling, cross country skiing and biathlon are exceptions. Cheating is required to be competitive.

I recall one Olympic where the results in cross country skiing were overturned after the samples were retested using new tests to find 'undetectable' steroids. The gold medal went to the guy who crossed the finish line almost last. The Silver went to last place. They didn't give a bronze. All the earlier finishers (and some later ones) having been disqualified.