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 the time Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs, began hosting a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session in January 2018, he had only nine months remaining to convince the people of Toronto, their government representatives, and presumably his parent company Alphabet, Inc., that Sidewalk Labs’ plan to construct “the first truly 21st-century city” on the Canadian city’s waterfront was a sound one. Along with much excitement and optimism, strains of concern had emerged since Doctoroff and partners first announced their intentions for a city “built from the internet up” in Toronto’s Quayside district. As Doctoroff prepared for yet another milestone in a year of planning and community engagement, it was almost certain that of the many questions headed his way, digital privacy would be among them.

In August 2017, Commonwealth Bank of Australia was looking for ways to differentiate itself from competing banks, and was also trying to improve the financial wellbeing of its customers. One domain where this was particularly relevant was in its bank-issued credit card business, where customers routinely selected cards that although profitable for the bank could be a poor fit for customers’ needs – leading to low satisfaction scores, cancellations, and occasionally, financial distress. To that end, the company’s Behavioral Economics team had developed a provocative experiment dubbed “The Good and the Bad.” Rather than just presenting the strengths of its various credit card offerings, they proposed also promoting each credit card’s less-obvious drawbacks. Being transparent with customers might help them make better choices, but would those choices come at the expense of bank performance? Should a company choose to be in the sales prevention business?

Companies want access to more and more of your personal data—from where you are to what’s in your DNA. Can they unlock its value while respecting consumers’ privacy?

Faculty & Research

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

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author