Cheating More for Less: Upward Social Comparisons Motivate the Poorly Compensated to Cheat

Leslie K. John; George   Loewenstein; Scott  Rick

Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | March 2014

Cheating More for Less: Upward Social Comparisons Motivate the Poorly Compensated to Cheat

by Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein and Scott Rick

Abstract

Intuitively, people should cheat more when cheating is more lucrative, but we find that the effect of performance-based pay rates on dishonesty depends on how readily people can compare their pay rate to that of others. In Experiment 1, participants were paid 5 cents or 25 cents per self-reported point in a trivia task, and half were aware that they could have received the alternative pay rate. Lower pay rates increased cheating when the prospect of a higher pay rate was salient. Experiment 2 illustrates that this effect is driven by the ease with which poorly compensated participants can compare their pay to that of others who earn a higher pay rate. Our results suggest that low pay rates are, in and of themselves, unlikely to promote dishonesty. Instead, it is the salience of upward social comparisons that encourages the poorly compensated to cheat.

Keywords: dishonesty; decision making; social comparison; fairness; pay secrecy; Motivation and Incentives; Fairness; Decision Making; Compensation and Benefits;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Scott Rick. "Cheating More for Less: Upward Social Comparisons Motivate the Poorly Compensated to Cheat." Special Issue on Behavioral Ethics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 123, no. 2 (March 2014): 101–109.

By adding random noise to individual responses, randomized response techniques (RRTs) are intended to enhance privacy protection and encourage honest disclosure of sensitive information. Empirical findings on their success in doing so are, however, mixed. In nine experiments, we show that the noise introduced by RRTs can make respondents concerned that innocuous responses will be interpreted as admissions, and, as a result, yield prevalence estimates that are lower than direct questioning (Studies 1–4, 5A, & 6), less accurate than direct questioning (Studies 1, 3, 4B, & 5A), and even nonsensical (i.e., negative, Studies 3–6). Studies 2A and 2B show that the paradox is eliminated when the target behavior is socially desirable, even when it is merely framed as such. Study 3 shows the paradox is driven by respondents’ concerns over response misinterpretation. A simple modification designed to reduce concerns over response misinterpretation reduces the problem (Studies 4 & 5), particularly when such concerns are heightened (Studies 5 & 6).

Governments have proposed text warning labels to decrease consumption of sugary drinks – a contributor to chronic diseases like diabetes. However, they may be less effective than more evocative, graphic warning labels. We field-tested the effectiveness of graphic warning labels (vs. text warning labels, calorie labels, and no labels), provided insight into psychological mechanisms driving effectiveness, and assessed consumer sentiment. Study 1 indicated that graphic warning labels reduced the share of sugary drinks purchased in a cafeteria, from 21.4% at baseline to 18.2%—an effect driven by substitution of water for sugary drinks. Study 2 showed that graphic warning labels work by heightening negative affect and prompting consideration of health consequences. Study 3 indicated that public support for graphic warning labels can be increased by conveying effectiveness information. These findings could spur more effective labeling policies that: facilitate healthier choices, do not decrease overall beverage purchases, and are publicly accepted.

Back to the Roots is a startup with a social mission to “undo food”—to reconnect people to where their food comes from. In late 2017, they are contemplating their next move. Back to the Roots has an eclectic portfolio of products, including ready-to-grow (e.g., gardens in a can) and ready-to-eat (e.g., cereal) products, and they are being courted by two major players in each category. With an award-winning snack bar in their hands, they are now debating whether they should delve further in to the ready-to-eat category. It is a competitive space and they wonder if they are ready to launch yet another new product and, if so, what this move would mean for their ready-to-grow product line.

Faculty & Research

Cheating More for Less: Upward Social Comparisons Motivate the Poorly Compensated to Cheat

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author