PEOPLE WHO FEEL CHEATED ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE DISHONEST
THEMSELVES
People who feel that they have been treated unfairly are much more likely to cheat –
and their dishonesty will typically be directed at someone other than the perceived
source of unfairness. These are among the findings of a study by Joachim Winter and
colleagues, presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2011 annual conference.
The researchers conducted a unique experiment with 750 students to explore how
people’s likelihood of cheating changes when they feel cheated themselves. Students
were asked to flip a coin and then report the outcome. If it was heads they received €1,
if tails €3. The only person who could see the face of the coin was the student, thus
removing any chance they would get caught cheating.
The only way the researchers could tell was by looking at the study as a whole. The
outcome of a coin flip is a 50:50 chance, so if the reported number of tails varied from
50% by a large amount, they could be sure that some people cheated.
Beforehand the students played another game to show what the effect of them being
cheated would have on their likeliness to cheat themselves. Half of the group received
€8 and could if they wanted, but with no obligation, share the money with an
anonymous partner in the room. While most did share something, around one third did
not, thus leaving a large part of the room feeling cheated.
The results of the flipping coin experiment were that:
 Almost 75% of the students claimed that they had been ‘lucky’ – much more than
the 50-50 chance with a coin flip, suggesting that many cheated.
 But among those who had been cheated earlier, the likelihood of cheating was
even higher, with 83% reporting that the coin face was a tail.
These results might explain such phenomena as tax evasion, which might partly be
caused by a perception that the individual tax rate or the tax system as a whole is
unfair. The perception of the tax system being unfair might justify cheating on taxes
even by an otherwise honest person.
More…
Why do people lie or cheat? There are ‘white lies’ – lies that don’t harm anyone but
make everybody feel better, such as telling your colleague ‘You look great today’ when
you walk into the office.
Then, cheating (and not getting caught) often has a payoff at somebody else’s
expense. In those situations, cheating might be viewed as rational choice.
But there’s more to cheating. In some situations, people might cheat to compensate for
something else, for example, for being treated unfairly. For example, some economists
think that evading taxes might partly be caused by a perception that the individual tax
rate or the tax system as a whole is unfair. The perception of the tax system being
unfair might justify cheating on taxes even by an otherwise honest person – and even
though it hurts society as a whole rather than the government in particular.
This research involves an experiment to test whether being treated unfairly makes
people more dishonest – not to retaliate against an unfair person but in an entirely
different context.
Studying cheating in a laboratory environment has the advantage that it is possible to
manipulate perceptions without people being conscious of it. On the other hand, the
students who participate in economic experiments know that they are being observed.
This is a critical issue with cheating, because usually people cheat when there is a
good chance of not being caught. An experimental design that identifies cheaters
directly thus does not seem to be helpful.
The researchers therefore took an indirect approach. They gave study participants
(about 750 students at the University of Munich) the opportunity to cheat by
misreporting the random outcome of a coin flip. They were told that if they flipped
‘heads’ they would get €1 but if ‘tails’ came up they would earn €3.
It was clear that the researchers could only observe what the participants reported – not
the true outcome of the coin flip. There was thus no risk of being identified as a cheater.
What the researchers could observe, however, was how many of a group were ‘lucky’.
Since a large number of students participated, the researchers knew that some
participants must have been cheating if the proportions of heads and tails were
statistically different from 50:50.
Before the cheating part of the experiment, participants played the ‘dictator game’. In
this very simple ‘game’, half of them received €8 and could, but were not obliged to,
share it with an anonymous partner in the room. Most of them actually did share
something, presumably because they would have found it unfair not to do so. Around a
third, however, did not adhere to this fairness norm and gave nothing to their partners.
Then came the coin flip part and the researchers were interested in whether it makes a
difference to cheating if an individual had been paired with an unfair person instead of a
fair-minded person. Almost 75% of the subjects claimed that they had been lucky –
much more than the 50-50 chance with a coin flip.
Among those who earned nothing before it was even higher: 83%. Keep in mind that
cheaters did not harm the person who had treated them unfairly – they stole money
from the experimenters who had no responsibility for the unfair sharing.
But could the researchers be sure that the cheaters responded to the perception of
unfairness and not to the fact that they just earned less than others? To test this, they
conducted another round of experiments and modified only one thing – the way the
money was distributed.
Now instead of a person deciding about how much to share, students picked a lottery
ticket hidden in an envelope, which specified how much they earned. Then they flipped
the coin again. The result was a similar percentage of cheaters, but whether they
cheated did not depend on how much they earned.
So what the researchers find is that when people have a perception of unfairness,
dishonest behaviour becomes more frequent – although the person they cheat is not
the source of unfairness.
ENDS
‘Fairness and Cheating’ by Daniel Houser (George Mason University), Stefan Vetter
(University of Munich) and Joachim Winter (University of Munich)
Contact:
Joachim Winter
Email: winter@lmu.de