Cheating and loss aversion: do people lie more to avoid a loss?

Gilles Grolleau (), Martin Kocher and Angela Sutan

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Does the extent of cheating depend on a proper reference point? We use a real effort task that implements a two (gain versus loss frame) times two (monitored performance versus unmonitored performance) between-subjects design to examine whether cheating is reference-dependent. Our experimental findings show that self-reported performance in the unmonitored condition is significantly higher than actual performance in the monitored condition — a clear indication for cheating. However, the level of cheating is by far higher in the loss frame than in the gain frame. Furthermore, men are much more strongly affected by the framing than women.

Keywords: cheating; experiment; loss aversion; lying; fraud; choice behavior; laboratory experimentation; fraude; mesure du comportement; comportement de choix; expérimentation en laboratoire; système de surveillance; appât du gain; aversion à la perte; honneteté (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (68)

Published in Management Science, 2016, 62 (12), pp.3428-3438. ⟨10.1287/mnsc.2015.2313⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Working Paper: Cheating and Loss Aversion: Do People Lie More to Avoid a Loss? (2014)
Working Paper: Cheating and loss aversion: do people lie more to avoid a loss? (2014)
Working Paper: Cheating and loss aversion: do people lie more to avoid a loss? (2014)
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:hal:journl:hal-01447446

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2313

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().