What facilitates collaborative cheating in hierarchical teams, and what are its outcomes for those engaged? In two preregistered studies (N = 724), we investigated how subordinates are influenced by leaders signaling a willingness to engage in collaborative cheating, and how subordinates perceive such leaders. Participants performed a task in which they could either report their performance honestly, or cheat for financial gain. Each participant was assigned a leader who could choose to check the report’s veracity. In Study 1, leaders who checked less often were perceived as more moral, trustworthy, competent, and psychologically closer than leaders who checked more often. This trustworthiness bonus translated to investments in a subsequent trust game. Study 2 revealed that these relationship benefits specifically arise for collaborative cheating, compared to competitive cheating (at the leader’s expense). We conclude that collaborative cheating in subordinate–leader dyads strengthens in-group bonds, bringing people closer together and cultivating trust.
AbbinkK. (2004). Staff rotation as an anti-corruption policy: An experimental study. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2003.10.008
2.
AbbinkK.IrlenbuschB.RennerE. (2002). An experimental bribery game. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18(2), 428–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/18.2.428
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
5.
AkbariM.Bahrami-RadD.KimbroughE. O.RomeroP. P.AlhosseiniS. (2020). An experimental study of kin and ethnic favoritism. Economic Inquiry, 58(4), 1795–1812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12917
6.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models usinglme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BhattacharjeeA.BermanJ. Z.ReedA. (2013, April). Tip of the hat, wag of the finger: How moral decoupling enables consumers to admire and admonish. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1086/667786
9.
BlaisA. R.WeberE. U. (2006, July). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making Journal, 1(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/t13084-000
10.
BodenschatzA.IrlenbuschB. (2019). Do two bribe less than one?–An experimental study on the four-eyes-principle. Applied Economics Letters, 26(3), 191–195.
11.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
12.
ChenD. L.SchongerM.WickensC. (2016, March1). oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.12.001
13.
ColeT.TeboulJ. C. B. (2004). Non-zero-sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the preference for similarity: Developing an adaptive model of close relational functioning. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00075.x
14.
ColumbusS.MolhoC. (2022, February1). Subjective interdependence and prosocial behaviour. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.022
15.
CullinanC. P.SuttonS. G. (2002). Defrauding the public interest: A critical examination of reengineered audit processes and the likelihood of detecting fraud. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2001.0527
16.
den NieuwenboerN. A.CunhaJ. V. d.TreviñoL. K. (2017). Middle managers and corruptive routine translation: The social production of deceptive performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 781–803. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1153
17.
EgorovM.KalshovenK.Pircher VerdorferA.PeusC. (2020). It’s a match: Moralization and the effects of moral foundations congruence on ethical and unethical leadership perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04178-9
FehrR.FulmerA.Keng-HighbergerF. T. (2019). How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral disengagement. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12366
20.
FischbacherU.Föllmi-HeusiF. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014
21.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007, February). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
22.
GächterS.RennerE. (2018). Leaders as role models and “belief managers” in social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 154, 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.08.001
23.
GamlielE.PeerE. (2013). Explicit risk of getting caught does not affect unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1281–1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12091
24.
GerlachP.TeodorescuK.HertwigR. (2019, January). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174
25.
GinoF.AyalS.ArielyD. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x
26.
GinoF.AyalS.ArielyD. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.005
27.
GinoF.GalinskyA. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.011
GoodwinG. P.PiazzaJ.RozinP. (2014, January). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034726
30.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
31.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011, August). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
32.
GrossJ.LeibM.OffermanT.ShalviS. (2018). Ethical free riding: When honest people find dishonest partners. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1956–1968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618796480
33.
HeintzC.KarabegovicM.MolnarA. (2016). The co-evolution of honesty and strategic vigilance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1503. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01503
34.
HighhouseS.NyeC. D.ZhangD. C.RadaT. B. (2017). Structure of the Dospert: Is there evidence for a general risk factor?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1953
35.
HildrethJ. A. D.AndersonC. (2018). Does loyalty trump honesty? Moral judgments of loyalty-driven deceit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.001
KimM.ParkB.YoungL. (2020). The psychology of motivated versus rational impression updating. Trends in Cognitive Science, 24(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.001
38.
KocherM. G.SchudyS.SpantigL. (2018). I lie? We lie! Why? Experimental evidence on a dishonesty shift in groups. Management Science, 64(9), 3995–4008. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2800
39.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP.ChristensenR. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LemoineG. J.HartnellC. A.LeroyH. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0121
43.
LevineE. E.SchweitzerM. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.007
44.
LindstromM. J.BatesD. M. (1990). Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics, 46(3), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532087
45.
MayerD. M.AquinoK.GreenbaumR. L.KuenziM. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276
46.
MeteyardL.DaviesR. A. I. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092
47.
OspinaR.FerrariS. L. P. (2012). A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(6), 1609–1623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2011.10.005
48.
PintoJ.LeanaC. R.PilF. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685–709. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465726
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
51.
RousseauD. M.McLean ParksJ. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–43.
52.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005, June). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
53.
SongF.ZhongC.-B. (2015). You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 112, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.01.009
54.
SoraperraI.WeiselO.ZultanR. i.KochaviS.LeibM.ShalevH.ShalviS. (2017). The bad consequences of teamwork. Economics Letters, 160, 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.08.011
55.
ThielmannI.BohmR.HilbigB. E. (2021). Buying unethical loyalty: A behavioral paradigm and empirical test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620905218
56.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2018). Daring dishonesty: On the role of sanctions for (un)ethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.009
WaytzA.DunganJ.YoungL. (2013). The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.002
59.
WeiselO.ShalviS. (2015, August25). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(34), 10651–10656. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423035112
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
