Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals

Cheating for material gain is a destructive phenomenon in any society. We examine the extent to which people care about the victims of their unethical behavior—be they a group of people or an individual—and whether they are sensitive to the degree of harm or cost that they cause to these victims. Th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amitay eAmir, Tehila eKogut, Yoella eBereby-Meyer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-03-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00371/full
id doaj-86f4983b45ab42d58e20d91f2e0289a9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-86f4983b45ab42d58e20d91f2e0289a92020-11-24T23:07:39ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782016-03-01710.3389/fpsyg.2016.00371170581Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individualsAmitay eAmir0Tehila eKogut1Yoella eBereby-Meyer2Ben Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelBen Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelBen Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelCheating for material gain is a destructive phenomenon in any society. We examine the extent to which people care about the victims of their unethical behavior—be they a group of people or an individual—and whether they are sensitive to the degree of harm or cost that they cause to these victims. The results of three studies suggest that when a group (rather than a single individual) is the victim of one’s behavior, the incidence of cheating increases only if the harm to the group is presented in global terms—such that the cheating might be justified by the relatively minor harm caused to each individual in the group (Study #1 and #3). However, when the harm or cost to each individual in the group is made explicit, the tendency to cheat the group is no longer apparent and the tendency to cheat increases when the harm caused is minor—regardless of whether the victim is an individual or a group of people (Study #2). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking appear to play different roles in the decision to cheat different type of opponents: individual opponents seem to trigger the subject’s intuitive thinking which restrains the urge to cheat, whereas groups of opponents seem to trigger the subject’s rational mode of thinking which encourage cheating.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00371/fullEthicsmoralityBehavioral Economicsdishonestythe singularity effect
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Amitay eAmir
Tehila eKogut
Yoella eBereby-Meyer
spellingShingle Amitay eAmir
Tehila eKogut
Yoella eBereby-Meyer
Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
Frontiers in Psychology
Ethics
morality
Behavioral Economics
dishonesty
the singularity effect
author_facet Amitay eAmir
Tehila eKogut
Yoella eBereby-Meyer
author_sort Amitay eAmir
title Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
title_short Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
title_full Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
title_fullStr Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
title_full_unstemmed Careful cheating: People cheat groups rather than individuals
title_sort careful cheating: people cheat groups rather than individuals
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2016-03-01
description Cheating for material gain is a destructive phenomenon in any society. We examine the extent to which people care about the victims of their unethical behavior—be they a group of people or an individual—and whether they are sensitive to the degree of harm or cost that they cause to these victims. The results of three studies suggest that when a group (rather than a single individual) is the victim of one’s behavior, the incidence of cheating increases only if the harm to the group is presented in global terms—such that the cheating might be justified by the relatively minor harm caused to each individual in the group (Study #1 and #3). However, when the harm or cost to each individual in the group is made explicit, the tendency to cheat the group is no longer apparent and the tendency to cheat increases when the harm caused is minor—regardless of whether the victim is an individual or a group of people (Study #2). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking appear to play different roles in the decision to cheat different type of opponents: individual opponents seem to trigger the subject’s intuitive thinking which restrains the urge to cheat, whereas groups of opponents seem to trigger the subject’s rational mode of thinking which encourage cheating.
topic Ethics
morality
Behavioral Economics
dishonesty
the singularity effect
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00371/full
work_keys_str_mv AT amitayeamir carefulcheatingpeoplecheatgroupsratherthanindividuals
AT tehilaekogut carefulcheatingpeoplecheatgroupsratherthanindividuals
AT yoellaeberebymeyer carefulcheatingpeoplecheatgroupsratherthanindividuals
_version_ 1725617834761912320