Cheating, a societal phenomenon

If there’s one phenomenon that’s omnipresent in all fields, it’s “cheating,” and not just in sports, not just in competition. It’s everywhere: at work, at school, in politics, on tax returns, in board games, on the road, in social life, etc. What are its mechanisms and limits? Small or big cheats: a dive into the world of deception.

By Jean-François Tatard – Photos: Flickr.com, Pixabay.com, Pxhere.com

When it comes to cheating, sports are often singled out, but no sector is spared. Competition, matches, and rankings can push people to bend the rules when they feel limited, or simply with the idea of putting in less effort. Or to gain a substantial advantage over their competitors. The exact definition of the verb to cheat, which is “to break certain explicit or customary rules or conventions while pretending to respect them,” can apply at all levels and in all fields. Everyone, of course, sets their own limits based on their personal morality, which varies from individual to individual.

Copying a text, a work, a job, and taking credit for it, is cheating. It’s trying to profit from someone else’s work. Cycling outside the lockdown rules, or cycling in a group on the first weekend of deconfinement when the conditions for practicing during this very particular period had been clearly stated by the authorities, is cheating. It amounts to considering that we are above the laws and rules of caution, that we allow ourselves to circumvent rules that apply to other citizens, at the risk of endangering ourselves and them, or even seeing a return to stricter conditions in the coming weeks. A behavior that is fundamentally not so different from that of famous cheaters.

The cost of cheating

With his back against the wall in the face of converging testimonies, Lance Armstrong finally admitted in 2013 to having used doping substances and other methods to win his 7 Tours de France. With the Omerta broken, British sprinter Dwain Chambers would report in his confessions the same initial determination: “Win at all costs!”

In this area, deception has an almost quickly verifiable cost: cheaters are often caught and punished. Even if the great fantasy of undetectable substances by all control methods persists, countless athletes have been caught by the patrol, suspended, and sometimes even banned for life from sports federations. These cases are just examples of what seems to be an endless stream of fraud cases reported by the press, which, moreover, do not only affect sports. We see it in work, most often among salespeople, where the spirit of competition is even more exacerbated, but also in science, education, the financial world, etc. Cahuzac or Madoff are not so different from Armstrong in their way of acting.

If the cheater risks losing everything once unmasked, they must also live in anticipation and often without a clear conscience.

Some reputations are also built on cheating. If the cheater risks losing everything once unmasked, they must also live in anticipation and often without a clear conscience. But of course, it’s a matter of personal conscience, honesty, and especially education, which builds our own morality and defines the limits of what we can or cannot do. Once unmasked, cheaters are stigmatized and likely to lose their achievements if it’s about sports, or their job if it’s about work.

Cheating obviously causes a whole series of collateral damage. Once resources are wasted by cheaters, individuals who play by the rules are unfortunately deprived of the rewards they deserve. Dishonest scientific research can lead other researchers down the wrong path, result in inconsistent public policies, and harm patients if therapeutic decisions are based on false information. These are just examples of consequences that can apply to many areas. Cheating can be detrimental to individuals and to society.

A societal phenomenon

While it’s comforting to think that most people are honest, cheating is common. A 1997 survey published by Linda Klebe Trevino of Pennsylvania State University revealed that out of 1800 students at nine American universities, about three-quarters admitted to having cheated on written exams. In 2005, sociologist Brian Martinson and his colleagues at the Health Partners Research Foundation in Bloomington, Minnesota, reported that a third of scientists confessed to not having been irreproachable in their research during the three years preceding the survey. Cheating is not limited to humans. The practice is also widespread in the animal world. And yes, as soon as there is competition for limited resources, we are exposed to it.

As soon as there is competition for limited resources, we are exposed to cheating.

The origins of deception

In nature, deception allows some individuals to gain advantages without having to put in the necessary effort. For an individual, the calculation is simple: “Can I get something for free, without getting caught?” Whatever the scale and level of cheating or the result linked to cheating, whether there’s a street champion’s medal to be won or Olympic gold, some take that risk. We also need to look at the world of work to see what some are willing to do to dominate. We all know a few who give themselves the illusion of being good and think they shine by dimming others.

In principle, we all know how to cheat. The question is what will make us cheat. Is it logic? Impulse? The influence of hormones in the brain? Cheating is widespread… But why resort to it? We have all certainly cheated in one way or another. So let’s demystify! The factors that lead to cheating are numerous:

• Being in an environment that immediately shows signs of deviant behavior. Where we know that cheating exists. Take a look at cycling pelotons or, more simply, at construction sites where half of the work is undeclared.
• The belief that there is so much written and so many resources on a given subject leads one to believe that one’s own behavior will not have much impact. So…
• Exposure to a deterministic view that our behavior is the result of genes and environment, as opposed to free choice. We follow the crowd without further thought.
• The feeling of having power. Of being above the rules.
• Physical or intellectual fatigue that gives way to temptation. Without even being able to resist it…

The most worrying thing is that cheating can become a reinforcement of bad practices. When we cheat, we tend to rationalize the behavior. Since it is impossible for us to change the past, we modify our attitude and justify our actions. It would thus seem that cheating can even temporarily inhibit ethics.

Inhibiting cheating

The factors that inhibit cheating are mainly:

• When we know we are being watched, we are less likely to act dishonestly. Subtle signs of surveillance such as mirrors or images of eyes are persuasive.
• The role of social norms: if cheating is more accepted, people will be more tempted to give in, but the opposite is just as true.
• Strict control of rules and the fear of getting caught: in sports, for example, anti-doping controls are improving every day, and it is increasingly difficult to slip through the net. Inveterate cheaters adapt. But they can always be unmasked retroactively. Others end up following the rules.
• A reflection on behaviors that one considers deviant oneself: before being dishonest or even breaking a small rule, one can ask oneself what one’s own requirements are towards other people. One cannot judge a cheater if one also practices deception. It is irrelevant, one loses all credibility.

The early theorists who considered cheating as a matter of personality and moral development were not entirely wrong. Thus, it seems that some people will never cheat, regardless of the facilitating context. And so, people who place high importance on values such as honesty, fairness, and compassion have remained immune to the temptation to cheat.

People who place high importance on values such as honesty, fairness, and compassion have remained immune to the temptation to cheat.

In conclusion

The key takeaway is that injunctions based on ethics and morality, as well as those based on the threat of sanctions, may not always be effective in preventing fraud. We highlight underlying mechanisms of this type of behavior that could thus open the door to new strategies. Hypnosis or meditation to reduce stress levels, for example. Introspection and the ability to travel alone with oneself remain the best defense against this tendency to cross boundaries.

But above all, far beyond any form of recognition or thirst for accomplishment, I believe that a strong moral compass can safely guide someone through the darkest contexts and throughout a lifetime… The same one that must prevent us from crying with the wolves when we ourselves are not sure of being irreproachable.

=> SEE ALSO: All our CQFD articles