Key Takeaways:

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that competitive interactions tend to make people’s behavior slightly less moral. The study involved 45 experiments conducted by teams around the world, analyzing the effects of competition on morality. The results showed a small decline in morality on average, but the effect was very small. The study also found that only the losers of the number-guessing game became more dishonest, with a larger effect. This suggests that competition may not affect morality much on average, possibly due to being disadvantaged in a competitive process that corrupts rather than competition itself.


Many of our economic and even social interactions are competitive. We use markets to find jobs, but also dates. What does this mean for our morals? Does capitalism give us the American dream, or American Psycho? Does the experience of competition keep us honest, or drive us towards cheating? 

These profound questions preoccupied the minds of some of the great classical economists, who saw capitalism as rife with both good and bad moral influences. Adam Smith mostly focused on the good, whereas Karl Marx was admittedly less optimistic.

To test this question convincingly in the lab, our project coordinators invited dozens of behavioural scientists to contribute their own experimental designs, resulting in observations of more than 18,000 people in total.

Our results, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that competitive interactions tend to make people’s behaviour slightly less moral – and offer some intriguing clues about why this might be so.

A difficult question to answer

We are not the first to take a scientific approach to the question of competition and morality. However, individual tests have delivered mixed results, possibly because of differences in the definitions and measures of morality used. 

Some of the early results were provocative, such as a finding that people in competition were less likely to prevent the death of a mouse. However, these results were hard to replicate or interpret.

One way to account for differences in the design of individual studies is to conduct a “meta-analysis”, evaluating and combining the results of many different studies. However, meta-analysis often has troubles of its own, as selective reporting and publication bias can influence which studies are available to be included in the analysis.

What was different about our study

To really get some reliable results, we went a step further and carried out a “prospective meta-analysis”. 

The “prospective” part means that all the studies to be included in the analysis were registered before they were done. This prevents cherry-picking of results, or bias in what kind of results are published.

Our project involved 45 different experiments carried out by teams around the world. Each team independently designed an experiment to test the effects of competition on morality.

The results of these studies, which involved observations of more than 18,123 individual participants, were then collated and analysed.

A small decline in morality (on average)

The meta-analysis revealed that competition has an overall negative effect on morality, but the effect is very small. (The effect is measured by a number called Cohen’s d. A value of 0.2 is considered a small effect, and the value we found was only 0.1.)

As expected, we also observed a substantial variation in the effects as measured by different experiments. Some were positive, some were negative, and the sizes of the effects also varied.

So despite the advantages of our new prospective meta-analysis, the jury is still out regarding the overall effect of competition on morality. 

Perhaps the question is too general to answer properly without a particular context. The devil may be in the details.

Loss, not competition, to blame?

My team (one of the 45 involved in the meta-analysis) used a number-guessing game between two people as an instance of competition. This was followed by an individual game of honesty, which was our measure for the effects on morality. 

This individual experiment resulted in a small negative overall effect of competition (d = –0.1) much like the meta-analysis, but it failed to reach statistical significance on its own. 

However, exploratory analysis of our results revealed a potential breakthrough.

We found it was only the losers of the number-guessing game who became more dishonest, with a larger effect (d = –0.34). The winners of the competition stage, on the other hand, showed no change in their honesty behaviour. 

These exploratory results – yet to be replicated – suggest a reason why competition does not affect morality much on average. Perhaps it is being disadvantaged in a competitive process that corrupts, not competition per se.

Contributor

Recently Published

Key Takeaway: Venture capital-backed startups, such as Anduril Industries, are transforming the defense sector by securing multi-million dollar contracts from the US Department of Defense and the UK Ministry of Defence. This surge in AI-driven defense technologies is driven by a relentless appetite for risk and innovation, with venture capital firms playing a pivotal role […]
Key Takeaway: Attosecond science, a field that earned the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2023, uses ultra-short laser pulses to observe and manipulate matter on timescales previously thought impossible. This breakthrough has implications across various sectors, including computing, renewable energy, medicine, and beyond. Attosecond science harnesses the energy of laser light to emit rapidly moving […]

Top Picks

Key Takeaway: Researchers are using genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) to study the complexities of microbial life, offering innovative solutions to climate change and space challenges. GEMs simulate the vast network of metabolic pathways within living organisms, allowing scientists to test and predict microbial behavior across diverse environments. They provide a detailed framework for understanding organisms’ […]
Key Takeaway: The “Wirkin” bag, a $78 imitation of Hermès’ Birkin bag, has gained popularity on TikTok, attracting millions of users. The bag, a clever portmanteau of “Walmart” and “Birkin,” allows everyday consumers to partake in high-end fashion without the exorbitant cost. The trend reflects a broader shift in societal values, where symbols of wealth […]
Key Takeaway: In 2022, scientists achieved the “experiment of the century” at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, marking the first time a fusion reaction produced more energy than consumed. This achievement has attracted billions of dollars in private investment, particularly in the United States, to advance fusion technology. However, a myriad of engineering challenges remain before […]
Key Takeaway: The demand for data centers is increasing, but they come with a significant environmental cost. Space-based data centers could be a potential solution, as they can be deployed and scaled with unprecedented speed to meet the surge in data demand. Companies like Lumen Orbit and Ascend are exploring extraterrestrial solutions, leveraging solar energy […]
Key Takeaway: As the new year begins, it’s important to challenge consumer myths and adopt a more conscious approach to consumption. The fallacy of “more is better” is a myth that materialistic consumption leads to diminished personal happiness and societal wellbeing. Low-consumption lifestyles can bring personal fulfillment and environmental benefits. The myth of “new equals […]

Trending

I highly recommend reading the McKinsey Global Institute’s new report, “Reskilling China: Transforming The World’s Largest Workforce Into Lifelong Learners”, which focuses on the country’s biggest employment challenge, re-training its workforce and the adoption of practices such as lifelong learning to address the growing digital transformation of its productive fabric. How to transform the country […]

Join our Newsletter

Get our monthly recap with the latest news, articles and resources.

Login

Welcome to Empirics

We are glad you have decided to join our mission of gathering the collective knowledge of Asia!
Join Empirics