Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Winners Become Cheaters (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by timothy on from the they've-seen-how-politics-works dept.

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.

4 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Makes sense by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Be Skeptical of Priming Studies by dcollins · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  3. Re:Well yeah by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?