Discussion

evidence for a mediation effect. To conclude, even if definite evidence is lacking, it is fair to say that the possibility for mediation cannot be excluded.

As the evidence regarding the indirect effect is somewhat ambiguous, it is also hard to refer to full vs. partial mediation. The non-significant direct effect in the mediation model (Figure 3) supports the notion of full mediation. However, as the corresponding p-value is still smaller than .1, and as the indirect effect is at the edge of significance, the situation might be better characterized as partial mediation.

Next to the ego SC questionnaire, subjects also completed a measure of task SC.

However, conducting the analyses with task SC as a mediator in place of ego SC yields no significant effects. There is neither an effect of framing on task SC nor an effect of task SC on reported performance.

Mead et al., 2009). This helps explaining the effect of ego SC on cheating in the current experiment: participants scoring high on ego SC were preoccupied so much with winning the contest that it took up cognitive resources which were then unavailable for exertion of self-control. Vice versa, a lack of ego SC might imply that there are enough cognitive resources available for self-control and suppression of temptations to engage in unethical behavior. Of course, this explanation is not unique to unethical behavior in contests; it applies also to non-competitive situations. For example, setting individual performance goals is associated with unethical behavior, as well (Barsky, 2008; Schweitzer, Ordóñez, & Douma, 2004; Welsh &

Ordóñez, 2014).

An alternative explanation for the effect of ego SC on cheating might be that the decision to cheat was a result of a cognitive cost benefit analysis (Basten, Biele, Heekeren, &

Fiebach, 2010). Unethical behavior, such as lying, is associated with psychological costs (Gneezy, Kajackaite, & Sobel, 2018). In the presence of competition, however, the costs of unethical behavior decrease (Schreck, 2015). At the same time, the importance of winning that is associated with ego SC results in an increased benefit of cheating, as it facilitates winning. In effect, thus, the benefits weigh heavier than the costs of cheating, leading to the decision to cheat. In plain terms, ego SC causes us to think that being a loser is worse than being a cheater.

M d e l can be linked o a io e l f om research on achievement motivation. This literature distinguishes between ego and task involvement (Nicholls, 1984, 1989; Ring & Kavussanu, 2018a). While ego involvement entails the goal of gaining

superiority over others, task involvement means pursuing a personal accomplishment or imp o ing one compe ence. The e i ob io o e lap of hi d ali m i h he no ion of ego and task SC (Chapter 2; Chapter 3): ego SC may be thought of as ego involvement in a contest, while task SC may be thought of as task involvement in a contest. Congruent with the result that ego SC causes cheating, previous research finds that ego involvement causes cheating (Ring & Kavussanu, 2018a; Van Yperen et al., 2011) and antisocial behavior (Sage

& Kavussanu, 2007). While this research takes place mostly in the sports or education

domains, Van Yperen et al. (2011) suggest that ego involved people have even more cheating intentions in the work domain than in the sports domain. On a more general level, ego

orientation (comparable to ego TC) is associated with reduced moral functioning (Kavussanu

& Ntoumanis, 2003). Th , he p e en d e l align ell i h finding f om achievement motivation literature, particularly ego involvement.

This study also constitutes an important contribution to the literature on

competitiveness (see Chapter 2; Houston et al., 2002). While this literature has traditionally understood competitiveness as a rather stable trait factor (Bönte, Lombardo, & Urbig, 2017;

Newby & Klein, 2014), the present study focused on a situationally dependent concept, namely ego SC (Chapter 2; Hartmann & Schreck, 2018). The idea behind ego SC is that, unlike ego TC, it varies in response to the situational context, such as the specifics of the respective contest. The present study is one of the first to empirically demonstrate this volatility of ego SC (cf. Chapter 3). In addition, ego SC could be clearly distinguished from ego TC, which showed no situational variation. This distinction is important because unlike the traditional ego TC, which can merely explain behavior ego SC opens up opportunities to change behavior. This study thus constitutes a pioneering example for the utilization of ego SC to reduce cheating in contests.

Utilizing ego SC for reducing unethical behavior requires a method to regulate ego SC in contestants. The present study delivers this method. Specifically, emphasizing task competition, i.e., the opportunity for personal development and enjoyment of the task, decreases ego SC and thereby causes more honest reporting. This manipulation is not

extreme it is merely a difference in wording. Hence, not only is ego SC context dependent;

i i e en ela i el ea o infl ence people ego SC le el by means of framing. This result is in line with achievement motivation research that employs similar framing interventions to alter ego involvement. For instance, Sage and Kavussanu (2007) d people mo al beha io d ing epea ed able occe ma che . The cce f ll manip la e pa icipan ego involvement by stressing the importance of winning the table soccer matches and showing a top ten player ranking. In contrast, the authors target task involvement by empha i ing lea ning and ga ging cce in e m of bjec imp o emen o e he o matches. In a laboratory experiment, Van Yperen et al. (2011) successfully imposes ego involvement on subjects by recommending them explicitly to try performing better than the other participants (as opposed to trying to improve the own performance). The intervention is enhanced by a subsequent task in which subjects have to write a few sentences about the a igned goal. Taken oge he , he p e en d f aming effec align ell i h ela ed research that successfully employed similar framing manipulations.

Another important aspect is that contest framing reduces cheating without affecting task performance. This is rather unique: other widely studied contest characteristics such as prize spread may be associated with ego SC and cheating, but they are also linked to

performance (Chapter 3; Harbring & Irlenbusch, 2011). This makes it unappealing for

organizations to reduce the prize spread as a measure against cheating. The here presented factor contest framing does not have these downsides: it appears to reduce cheating without affecting performance, thereby making it a feasible way for contest organizers to decrease the amount of cheating among contestants.

Though not being a primary concern of this study, it is noteworthy that neither ego TC nor ego SC were affected by gender. This result is surprising, because the vast majority of the literature reports that men score higher on competitiveness scales than women (Saccardo et al., 2018). However, the correlation of ego TC and SC is indicative of correct

measurement. Hence, it is most likely that the sample happened to comprise women and men who were overall equally competitive.