Cargando…

Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?

In this preregistered study, we attempted to replicate and substantially extend a frequently cited experiment by Schurr and Ritov, published in 2016, suggesting that winners of pairwise competitions are more likely than others to steal money in subsequent games of chance against different opponents,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colman, Andrew M., Pulford, Briony D., Frosch, Caren A., Mangiarulo, Marta, Miles, Jeremy N. V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9346351/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202197
_version_ 1784761631900696576
author Colman, Andrew M.
Pulford, Briony D.
Frosch, Caren A.
Mangiarulo, Marta
Miles, Jeremy N. V.
author_facet Colman, Andrew M.
Pulford, Briony D.
Frosch, Caren A.
Mangiarulo, Marta
Miles, Jeremy N. V.
author_sort Colman, Andrew M.
collection PubMed
description In this preregistered study, we attempted to replicate and substantially extend a frequently cited experiment by Schurr and Ritov, published in 2016, suggesting that winners of pairwise competitions are more likely than others to steal money in subsequent games of chance against different opponents, possibly because of an enhanced sense of entitlement among competition winners. A replication seemed desirable because of the relevance of the effect to dishonesty in everyday life, the apparent counterintuitivity of the effect, possible problems and anomalies in the original study, and above all the fact that the researchers investigated only one potential explanation for the effect. Our results failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding: we found no evidence to support the hypotheses that either winning or losing is associated with subsequent cheating. A second online study also failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding. We used structural equation modelling to test four possible explanations for cheating—sense of entitlement, self-confidence, feeling lucky and inequality aversion. Only inequality aversion turned out to be significantly associated with cheating.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9346351
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93463512022-08-09 Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating? Colman, Andrew M. Pulford, Briony D. Frosch, Caren A. Mangiarulo, Marta Miles, Jeremy N. V. R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience In this preregistered study, we attempted to replicate and substantially extend a frequently cited experiment by Schurr and Ritov, published in 2016, suggesting that winners of pairwise competitions are more likely than others to steal money in subsequent games of chance against different opponents, possibly because of an enhanced sense of entitlement among competition winners. A replication seemed desirable because of the relevance of the effect to dishonesty in everyday life, the apparent counterintuitivity of the effect, possible problems and anomalies in the original study, and above all the fact that the researchers investigated only one potential explanation for the effect. Our results failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding: we found no evidence to support the hypotheses that either winning or losing is associated with subsequent cheating. A second online study also failed to replicate Schurr and Ritov's basic finding. We used structural equation modelling to test four possible explanations for cheating—sense of entitlement, self-confidence, feeling lucky and inequality aversion. Only inequality aversion turned out to be significantly associated with cheating. The Royal Society 2022-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9346351/ /pubmed/35950201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202197 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
Colman, Andrew M.
Pulford, Briony D.
Frosch, Caren A.
Mangiarulo, Marta
Miles, Jeremy N. V.
Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title_full Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title_fullStr Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title_full_unstemmed Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title_short Does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
title_sort does competitive winning increase subsequent cheating?
topic Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9346351/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202197
work_keys_str_mv AT colmanandrewm doescompetitivewinningincreasesubsequentcheating
AT pulfordbrionyd doescompetitivewinningincreasesubsequentcheating
AT froschcarena doescompetitivewinningincreasesubsequentcheating
AT mangiarulomarta doescompetitivewinningincreasesubsequentcheating
AT milesjeremynv doescompetitivewinningincreasesubsequentcheating