Unethical behavior can be mitigated by modifying specific contest attributes

Was I successful in finding a method to reduce unethical behavior in contests? The short answer is yes: to the extent that task framing decreases cheating I found a way of reducing unethical behavior in contest. Part of the long answer is that the corresponding statistical effects are not exactly textbook examples that is, some effects leave room for interpretation and are therefore attackable. Looking at the big picture, however, allows some confidence in the notion of state competitiveness and its explanatory power for unethical behavior. And while the effect of contest framing on ego SC and cheating dominates the thesis to some e en , he e l of Chap e 2 and 3 a e a impo an a he final e in Chap e 4.

The literature review contributes much to the attainment of the principal research goal (Chapter 2). Reviewing the literature yields the framework which forms the basis for the later experimental research. The framework identifies and isolates five crucial categories of

variables in explaining behavior in contests: contest attributes, attributes of the person, attributes of the situation, affective state, and (unethical) behavior. Two of these categories play a particularly important role for the remainder of the research project, namely contest attributes and affective state. Why are these two categories so important and in which way does this dissertation contribute to their advancement? To put it simply, these two categories are important because they include variables that can be directly (contest attributes) or indirectly (affective state) controlled by the contest organizer. As such, a particular practical

relevance inheres in these categories. This is in contrast to attributes if the person, such as trait competitiveness, which is a stable individual difference variable and as such not readily altered (Hamaker, Nesselroade, & Molenaar, 2007). Attributes of the situation, as reflected in the framework, include variables that are typically not controlled by the contest organizer, such as organizational culture or a rivalry with a specific competitor (Chapter 2).

The f ame o k affec i e a e componen incl de variables that describe the con e an c en a e o condi ion. In con a o con e o i a ion a ib e , affec i e states describe internal concepts, processes that take place inside the competing person. And in contrast to the more stable person attributes, affective states are momentary and situation dependent. In the context of competition, the bulk of the literature focuses on one of two state aspects: competitive arousal, which mainly reflects a physiological condition of action

readiness in con e , and a e compe i i ene , hich eflec a con e an mo i a ion o exert effort in a contest. The latter concept state competitiveness became a key

componen fo m e ea ch fo a io ea on . Fi , a pe on in e nal mo i a ional a e is a very proximal predictor of behavior compared to the more distal predictors that the

framework subsumes under the attributes of the contest, person, and situation. As such, the discussion of state competitiveness promised to advance understanding of behavior in contests and to make more precise predictions than the other three components could yield.

Second, state competitiveness promised to yield new insights because it is a novel concept.

There have been occasional mentions of state competitiveness, and a few researchers have taken state concepts into account when explaining behavior in contests (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo, & Reade, 2016; Malhotra, 2010). However, prior to our literature review no one has consolidated this research into one category. After completing this step, it was natural to study the new concept in more detail. The third reason for the study of state competitiveness was its ability to disentangle the motivations for increased effort and unethical behavior.

Prior to this dissertation, research had demonstrated that competition increased both effort and unethical behavior. Larkin and Pierce (2015) have called this the inseparability of productive and counterproductive behavior. Specific de e minan ch a p i e p ead had been shown to affect effort and unethical behavior in much the same manner. Against this background, state competitiveness promised to explain the circumstances under which contestants employ effort versus unethical behavior to win. Disentangling the two was important in order to reduce one (unethical behavior) without affecting the other (effort/performance).

By identifying and studying the concept state competitiveness, the present research significantly advances understanding of unethical behavior in contests. In their entirety, the results of my research suggest that ego SC is an important link between various attributes of

he con e , he pe on ai compe i i ene , and ne hical beha io . Specificall , ego SC was shown to be associated with two contest attributes (i.e., prize spread and contest

framing), one person attribute (i.e., trait competitiveness), and one case of unethical behavior (i.e., cheating). These results all contribute to the answer of the overall research question of how to mitigate unethical behavior in contests. To put it straight, my research suggests that unethical behavior can be reduced by reducing ego SC. To reduce ego SC different

interventions are conceivable, and I tested two of them. The result: reducing the prize spread and framing the contest in terms of task competitiveness both decrease ego SC. A practical disadvantage of reducing prize spread, however, is that it also reduces effort among

contestants (Harbring & Irlenbusch, 2011). In contrast, task framing does not affect

performance and thus appears to be a more viable way of diminishing cheating than reducing the prize spread. In that sense, the overall research goal of finding a way of reducing cheating in contests was attained.

The role of contest factors in the framework of unethical behavior in contests is worth discussing, too. The literature review yields a list of contest attributes that have been studied with respect to unethical behavior. The list could now be extended by the factor contest framing, which was first studied in Chapter 4. In important question is whether ego SC really mediates all effects of contest attributes on unethical behavior. To test this claim, more contest attributes have to be studied in combination with ego SC and unethical behavior. Of course, the list in Chapter 2 is not exhaustive other contest attributes are conceivable as well. It would be valuable to identify more determinants of ego SC. Other determinants are potential additional tools to reduce unethical behavior. Moreover, the factors might be combined, so that the resulting contest design would decrease cheating even more. But additional studies involving ego vs. task framing would be just as valuable: as my research can only point at the possibility of influencing ego SC and cheating by means of contest framing, more research is needed to corroborate this effect with different tasks and in different contexts, including field settings.