The Psychology of Cheating

[Maxiton]

"Once the cheating starts, it’s natural to impute it to others. 'When it comes to negative characteristics, we tend to overestimate how much others have in common with us,' said David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University.

"That is to say: A corner cutter often begins to think everyone else is cheating after he has started cheating, not before.

“'And if they are subsequently rewarded for the extra productivity, they tend to internalize the feeling of pride and view their success as due to inherent ability and not something else they were using,' said Dr. DeSteno."

From today's New York Times. Read the rest of the article here.

Some insight into cheating and corner-cutting - how it starts, what goes on in the mind after it begins, etc. (I thought about posting this in the Lance Armstrong thread, but decided not to when I realized that, of course, it applies to cycling in general and all organized sports.) Discuss.

 

[lean mean &green]

i like david dunning's work and i'm not the least bit surprised by his or other expert comment in the article.

we know there's a false consensus effect in PED users. in other words, PED users overestimate how widespread PED use in other athletes. it's likely a defense mechanism, a form of rationalizing but most likely unconscious. it's also a real confounding effect when trying to determine how prevalent PED use actually is from their first hand accounts. while they may exaggerate the use of others i still think that drug use is quite common in the elite levels of cycling as well as other sports. i just take the comments of convicted dopers with a pinch of salt.

 

[brianf7]

That is what it is all about you win on your own ability the drugs that they take work differently on each indevidual so there is no way of knowing how a drug is going to work for you and it is different every day .
It is your own ability boosted by whatever works for you on the day some days nothing will work and some times the drugs may work against you.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

another defense mechanism for wrongdoing in general: It isn't ______ unless you get caught (fill the blank in with the offense... e.g. cheating, stealing, etc). Sad.

 

[blutto]

"Once the cheating starts, it’s natural to impute it to others. 'When it comes to negative characteristics, we tend to overestimate how much others have in common with us,' said David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University.

"That is to say: A corner cutter often begins to think everyone else is cheating after he has started cheating, not before.

“'And if they are subsequently rewarded for the extra productivity, they tend to internalize the feeling of pride and view their success as due to inherent ability and not something else they were using,' said Dr. DeSteno."

From today's New York Times. Read the rest of the article here.

Some insight into cheating and corner-cutting - how it starts, what goes on in the mind after it begins, etc. (I thought about posting this in the Lance Armstrong thread, but decided not to when I realized that, of course, it applies to cycling in general and all organized sports.) Discuss.

...very interesting article...

...and while admittedly not skilled in the shrinking arts there are some ramifications here that were covered in some depth in a recent conversation with someone who is...a long discussion ended up examining a phenomenon that one can find is many forums, something I call freeper logic, wherein certain human foibles are projected onto the other when engaged in your typical internet debate...these foibles are usually used to put down the other while maintaining a position of ideal purity...

...the funny thing is that the actual position the freeper occupies is dead centre in the morass he is criticizing...so for instance right wingers attack the godless depravity of the liberal world yet statistics show the areas they actually reside in are the most depraved ( they have the highest use of porn, the highest rates of infidelity, the highest rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and are the largest users of government handouts )...they in fact, are the problem, yet they project their problems onto the other, and often from a very idealized self defined position...

...while the right wing political arena is the most obvious breeding ground for this kind of behaviour this phenomenon also seems to define the operating procedures of a broader internet group...this group has adherents in just about every heated internet gathering and these folks are generally labelled haters...sort of like sinners( real or potential) projecting their weakness onto others and for the full effect mix in with a dollop of self-hate...voila!...

...kinda puts a lot of the discussions about drugs that regularly occur in this forum into a pretty strange light doesn't it...not to say the drug issues do not exist or that they are not very important but you have to admit more often than not there is a messianic overtone in these discussions that really poisons the waters...

...just a thought...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

i like david dunning's work and i'm not the least bit surprised by his or other expert comment in the article.

we know there's a false consensus effect in PED users. in other words, PED users overestimate how widespread PED use in other athletes. it's likely a defense mechanism, a form of rationalizing but most likely unconscious. it's also a real confounding effect when trying to determine how prevalent PED use actually is from their first hand accounts. while they may exaggerate the use of others i still think that drug use is quite common in the elite levels of cycling as well as other sports. i just take the comments of convicted dopers with a pinch of salt.

...kinda like using old Willie Voet to justify your position in a debate on something like, say, drugs in the peloton?....so the pictures presented by Willie are crystal clear but the problem is they may not be as truthful as some would hope...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Andynonomous]

Irony much.

...very interesting article...

...and while admittedly not skilled in the shrinking arts there are some ramifications here that were covered in some depth in a recent conversation with someone who is...a long discussion ended up examining a phenomenon that one can find is many forums, something I call freeper logic, wherein certain human foibles are projected onto the other when engaged in your typical internet debate...these foibles are usually used to put down the other while maintaining a position of ideal purity...

...the funny thing is that the actual position the freeper occupies is dead centre in the morass he is criticizing...so for instance right wingers attack the godless depravity of the liberal world yet statistics show the areas they actually reside in are the most depraved ( they have the highest use of porn, the highest rates of infidelity, the highest rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and are the largest users of government handouts )...they in fact, are the problem, yet they project their problems onto the other, and often from a very idealized self defined position...

...while the right wing political arena is the most obvious breeding ground for this kind of behaviour this phenomenon also seems to define the operating procedures of a broader internet group...this group has adherents in just about every heated internet gathering and these folks are generally labelled haters...

...kinda puts a lot of the discussions about drugs that regularly occur in this forum into a pretty strange light doesn't it...not to say the drug issues do not exist or that they are not very important but you have to admit more often than not there is a messianic overtone in these discussions that really poisons the waters...

...just a thought...

Cheers

blutto

You write about how "right wingers" view others as inferior, then you do the same to them. But I suppose it was all lost in your "intellectualizing" (translate - rationalizing away your inferiority).

 

[Hugh Januss]

...kinda like using old Willie Voet to justify your position in a debate on something like, say, drugs in the peloton?....so the pictures presented by Willie are crystal clear but the problem is they may not be as truthful as some would hope...

Cheers

blutto

Nobody hopes that doping is as widespread in the pro peloton as is thought, but the odds are that it is.
The conventional wisdom in the pros is that everyone is doing it so it is not cheating (in fact you are an idiot if you try to compete without it).

 

[ultimobici]

another defense mechanism for wrongdoing in general: It isn't ______ unless you get caught (fill the blank in with the offense... e.g. cheating, stealing, etc). Sad.

I take it from your comment that you abide by every single law, rule & convention without exception?

 

[JPM London]

Nobody hopes that doping is as widespread in the pro peloton as is thought, but the odds are that it is.
The conventional wisdom in the pros is that everyone is doing it so it is not cheating (in fact you are an idiot if you try to compete without it).

But conventional wisdom is not always correct, is it?

As Lean says below, this conventional wisdom is what dopers use as an excuse - and probably most of the time is one of the factors that makes them start...

 

[TexPat]

This is a great subject for debate and one I've wondered about for years.
I don't mean just PEDs or taxes, but intramarital, poker and general criminality.
The whole rationalization thing is one that we as members of society (and humanity) are well familiar with. To some extent we all rationalize our behavior, especially when we know that it falls outside the social norm, but some are able to do so without guilt and some without fear of consequence, which, if my rudimentary knowledge is correct, defines sociopathic behavior.
I was raised Roman Catholic and have the associated guilt firmly instilled in me, despite my attempts at unshackling myself completely from dogma. Higher education and modern thought have, at least, had a profound effect on my own rational thought and weltanschauung. I have evolved into something like a Moralist, I suppose. The difference between right and wrong was perhaps the strongest lesson in my upbringing, and the one that has remained unfettered.
What is it that allows some of us to not give a toss about the rules that govern us? Is it purely self-interest? [As someone raised RC, enlightened self-interest has a certain irony to it--but I digress]
Is it sociopathic?

 

[ultimobici]

But conventional wisdom is not always correct, is it?

As Lean says below, this conventional wisdom is what dopers use as an excuse - and probably most of the time is one of the factors that makes them start...

One could apply the same logic to any aspect of life. Everyone cheats on their tax return, everyone breaks the speed limit etc. We tell ourselves these things to justify our behaviour but it is no different to the logic an athlete applies when crossing the doping line. Sport mirrors life because it is open to the same influences as regular life.

 

[GoneWithTailWind]

The whole topic is something that I've been thinking about the last while.

I just bought this book yesterday.

Just have to find the time to read it now...

 

[TexPat]

The whole topic is something that I've been thinking about the last while.

I just bought this book yesterday.

Just have to find the time to read it now...

I'll check it out.
It probably says that some don't give a toss, some have no shame, some lie to save face, some are crazy, some fear consequences.
As complex an issue as any.

 

[JPM London]

One could apply the same logic to any aspect of life. Everyone cheats on their tax return, everyone breaks the speed limit etc. We tell ourselves these things to justify our behaviour but it is no different to the logic an athlete applies when crossing the doping line. Sport mirrors life because it is open to the same influences as regular life.

As for the speed thing - I've been driving in Italy and France over the last couple of weeks. In both countries traffic flows completely differently from the UK where I'm more used to driving and other places I've driven as well.

In Italy especially speed limits seem to be completely ignored and you quickly find yourself speeding just to keep up - not in the "I want to win" way (assumed typical doping) but in the sense that you A) feel like you're looking ridiculous going so much slower, B) you're seriously starting to consider if it's you who've read the signs wrong and - most frightening - C) you start to feel it's actually unsafe to go at a speed so much lower than the rest of traffic.

I wonder to what degree A and B translate into doping as well - the current discussion on Bassons is not much different from A...

I'll check it out.
It probably says that some don't give a toss, some have no shame, some lie to save face, some are crazy, some fear consequences.
As complex an issue as any.

Wow, the ten second book review. Even without reading it - but it's probably accurate.

Remember seeing a program once where the took different kids and put them in a room with some very exciting toys. They then told the kids if they behaved and didn't play with the toys they could have them later - then they left the kids alone in the room for a bit. Most of the kids - if not all - played with the toys, but when the adult later returned and asked if the kid had played with the toys the more intelligent kids lied. Already at that age having learnt that you're supposed to be honest, but the world works differently...
I don't remember anything about how many - if any- of the kids who didn't play with the toys but actually behaved...

There's no doubt in my mind that when we're told by our parents (and others) that lying's wrong, we also observe the completely opposite displayed by them when the need arises and so more importantly learn by example. It's also noted somewhere, don't remember where, that when taking in information we only rely like 10% on the spoken word, but 90% on gestures and intonation - don't remember the split between those two though...

 

[Berzin]

I don't understand why we can't use concrete examples instead of going into esoteric stuff like speeding tickets or cheating on taxes.

When it comes to morality and doping in sports, there is a huge division between fans who post on internet sites and professional riders. Pro riders on the continent face far more pragmatic concerns besides moral qualms over right and wrong when it comes to cheating.

They are faced with a sport that is ruled by the old boy's network down to the grassroots level. This is true in every Western European country where cycling has been a tradition for years.

This intellectual inbreeding means that riders don't have an opportunity to develop fresh attitudes towards drawing a fine line between the desire to be a champion, riding just to hold a job or doing it for the love.

They must decide to do something under normal circumstances they may not want to do, but feel they have no choice.

Then there are others, the chosen few, who look to be at the top of their sports and get into it "whole hog" (pun intended) and would cheat regardless if there was anything in it for them besides a plastic medal and a gift certificate to Arby's.

These are the weekend warriors and the ham-and-eggers, the guys riding the local circuit for whom very little besides ego and arrogance is at stake.

Both of these examples cast aspersions on what sport should be about, but we must come to the reality that the motives say a lot about the lengths people will go to to feel good about themselves and succeed.

These choices aren't about morality and immorality-it's about amorality, choices made outside the normal tug-and-pull of whether something is right and wrong or why.

My personal opinion is the average person isn't very intellectually evolved, or are so stuck within a particular dogma that they are unwilling and unable to see differing points of view without processing it through a certain religious or political agenda, and thus should not be be held to standards that are beyond their scope to either comprehend or empathize with.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I take it from your comment that you abide by every single law, rule & convention without exception?

laws: Yeup... err, except speeding.
IDK about other rules/conventions.

 

[LanceInMyPants]

Integrity

My personal opinion is the average person isn't very intellectually evolved, or are so stuck within a particular dogma that they are unwilling and unable to see differing points of view without processing it through a certain religious or political agenda, and thus should not be be held to standards that are beyond their scope to either comprehend or empathize with.

Most people are sheeple. I have to believe people who aren't conformists will decide NOT to pursue a professional sport like cycling when faced with the decision of doping. I knew a Belgian who lived in the USA who refused to sign with a pro team because of all the drugs. He raced as an amateur and earned his living in the construction trades.

Now these are the kind of people who I admire. People who have integrity.

 

[Andynonomous]

They actually believe they earned it.

Mark McGuire claimed that he would have hit the same number of home runs even without his "Andro". This is of course BS.

Before the "steroids era" (probably starting in the 80s,) in baseball, almost all player's batting average would start to fall by their mid 30s. Most retired by their late thirties, because their performance had fallen below the level that they could help their team.

McGuire's Batting average was falling for years, then in his 30s, that batting average dramatically rose to a level higher than it was his whole life. Of course, we now know that he was seriously juiced at the end of his career.

Point is, these CHEATS actually believe they earned everything they got fair and square. They are all to some degree narcissistic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't understand why we can't use concrete examples instead of going into esoteric stuff like speeding tickets or cheating on taxes.

When it comes to morality and doping in sports, there is a huge division between fans who post on internet sites and professional riders. Pro riders on the continent face far more pragmatic concerns besides moral qualms over right and wrong when it comes to cheating.

Doesn't your second paragraph answer your first paragraph?
Some of us here are not Pro riders who had that choice to make - so it is natural to look at things that are viewed as 'wrong' or 'cheating' and look at how we rationalize and try to excuse our own transgressions.

They are faced with a sport that is ruled by the old boy's network down to the grassroots level. This is true in every Western European country where cycling has been a tradition for years.

This intellectual inbreeding means that riders don't have an opportunity to develop fresh attitudes towards drawing a fine line between the desire to be a champion, riding just to hold a job or doing it for the love.

They must decide to do something under normal circumstances they may not want to do, but feel they have no choice.

Then there are others, the chosen few, who look to be at the top of their sports and get into it "whole hog" (pun intended) and would cheat regardless if there was anything in it for them besides a plastic medal and a gift certificate to Arby's.

These are the weekend warriors and the ham-and-eggers, the guys riding the local circuit for whom very little besides ego and arrogance is at stake.

Both of these examples cast aspersions on what sport should be about, but we must come to the reality that the motives say a lot about the lengths people will go to to feel good about themselves and succeed.

These choices aren't about morality and immorality-it's about amorality, choices made outside the normal tug-and-pull of whether something is right and wrong or why.

My personal opinion is the average person isn't very intellectually evolved, or are so stuck within a particular dogma that they are unwilling and unable to see differing points of view without processing it through a certain religious or political agenda, and thus should not be be held to standards that are beyond their scope to either comprehend or empathize with.

Great points - and I would add that for a Pro sports athlete how they view sport fundamentally changes when they sign the dotted line and become a Pro.

Sport is no longer about fun and personal achievement - they are part of a structure and team, with obligations and responsibility to their team.
Their livelihood is dependent on performing the tasks set out for them - so a black and white, right vs wrong that they may have had prior to being a Pro quickly becomes diluted to shades of grey.

Certainly there are those who have no problem going the 'whole hog' - the reality is that it is these people (irrespective of their number) who dictate what the level is.

 

[forty four]

...very interesting article...

...and while admittedly not skilled in the shrinking arts there are some ramifications here that were covered in some depth in a recent conversation with someone who is...a long discussion ended up examining a phenomenon that one can find is many forums, something I call freeper logic, wherein certain human foibles are projected onto the other when engaged in your typical internet debate...these foibles are usually used to put down the other while maintaining a position of ideal purity...

...the funny thing is that the actual position the freeper occupies is dead centre in the morass he is criticizing...so for instance right wingers attack the godless depravity of the liberal world yet statistics show the areas they actually reside in are the most depraved ( they have the highest use of porn, the highest rates of infidelity, the highest rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and are the largest users of government handouts )...they in fact, are the problem, yet they project their problems onto the other, and often from a very idealized self defined position...

...while the right wing political arena is the most obvious breeding ground for this kind of behaviour this phenomenon also seems to define the operating procedures of a broader internet group...this group has adherents in just about every heated internet gathering and these folks are generally labelled haters...sort of like sinners( real or potential) projecting their weakness onto others and for the full effect mix in with a dollop of self-hate...voila!...

...kinda puts a lot of the discussions about drugs that regularly occur in this forum into a pretty strange light doesn't it...not to say the drug issues do not exist or that they are not very important but you have to admit more often than not there is a messianic overtone in these discussions that really poisons the waters...

...just a thought...

Cheers

blutto

i tend to agree+++

 

[gregod]

A timely topic. I was just thinking about something similar to this.

Back in the early 80s when I raced, I knew that certain kinds of doping were available. However, I was never approached with an offer to start and I never sought it out. I never really thought about why not until recently. (Probably, I just was not good enough to bother with such an investment.)

So, assuming that at least one team in the ProTour is completely dirty (I have one in mind and I bet you do, too), how does the DS recruit riders to dope? First there is a risk of exposure for broaching the subject to a recruit. Also, there is the chance that a contracted rider won't join the "program" and therefore not ride up to his or her "potential".

Does DopeExpertDS somehow know which riders were doping on other teams or at the lower levels? Does he know which riders would be susceptible to the offer of doping?

Are there some kinds of personality types that are or are not likely to dope?

 

[shawnrohrbach]

This is a great subject for debate and one I've wondered about for years.
I don't mean just PEDs or taxes, but intramarital, poker and general criminality.
The whole rationalization thing is one that we as members of society (and humanity) are well familiar with. To some extent we all rationalize our behavior, especially when we know that it falls outside the social norm, but some are able to do so without guilt and some without fear of consequence, which, if my rudimentary knowledge is correct, defines sociopathic behavior.
I was raised Roman Catholic and have the associated guilt firmly instilled in me, despite my attempts at unshackling myself completely from dogma. Higher education and modern thought have, at least, had a profound effect on my own rational thought and weltanschauung. I have evolved into something like a Moralist, I suppose. The difference between right and wrong was perhaps the strongest lesson in my upbringing, and the one that has remained unfettered.
What is it that allows some of us to not give a toss about the rules that govern us? Is it purely self-interest? [As someone raised RC, enlightened self-interest has a certain irony to it--but I digress]
Is it sociopathic?

Also raised RC and in fact went through 4 years Philosophy 2 years of Theology on my way to being a priest. Got out and didn't go back. The studies in the philosophical underpinnings of western moral conduct lead me to believe morality is a natural state and not necessarily learned from a religious source. Some of the most gentle, righteous, giving, fair, hard working people i know have never been inside a church. Some of the most duplicitous, immoral, violent, lying, thieving a-holes i know have powerful positions in one church or another, or they wear those little gold crosses and point to the "heavens" when they win a race or hit a home run. All the while jacked up on the Jesus Juice. Don't look to religion for an answer to why people cheat. The most pernicious rationalization I have heard in business is cheating gets you money and Jesus is happy when we are rich. Get it anyway you can.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So, assuming that at least one team in the ProTour is completely dirty (I have one in mind and I bet you do, too), how does the DS recruit riders to dope? First there is a risk of exposure for broaching the subject to a recruit. Also, there is the chance that a contracted rider won't join the "program" and therefore not ride up to his or her "potential".

Does DopeExpertDS somehow know which riders were doping on other teams or at the lower levels? Does he know which riders would be susceptible to the offer of doping?

Are there some kinds of personality types that are or are not likely to dope?

Or is it simply that finding willing participants within the pool of new recruits is akin to hunting fish in a barrel?