The effect of gain and loss framing on cheating: Evidence for the null

Dana Zeif and Eldad Yechiam

Judgment and Decision Making, 2025, vol. 20, -

Abstract: We followed up on previous results showing increased cheating under the threat of potential losses compared to the promise of equivalent gains, as well as inconsistent findings in this literature. Our studies used diverse paradigms, including random number reporting, binary number reporting, performance-level reporting, and reliance on illicit resources. In seven studies of online workers (n = 3,803), we found that participants tended to cheat, though the effect size of cheating (Cohen’s d) varied from 0.14 to 1.18 in different settings. However, in all studied paradigms, we observed no significant effect of gain and loss framing, with an overall effect size of d = 0.004, and with the variance in different studies accounted for by sampling error. Examining the moderating effect of stake size did not yield significant findings. At the individual level, higher cheating was predicted by loss aversion, but, on average, participants did not exhibit loss aversion for the obtained incentives. Thus, we cannot overrule the possibility that the inconsistencies in the literature might simply be due to sampling noise around an extremely small (or zero) effect.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:20:y:2025:i::p:-_40

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Judgment and Decision Making from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().