Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2025

The Social Dimension of Stress: Experimental Manipulations of Social Support and Social Identity in the Trier Social Stress Test
Published on: November 19, 2015
Collective Punishment and Cheating in the Die-Under-the-Cup Task
Erez Siniver1, Yossef Tobol2, Gideon Yaniv3
1School of Economics, COMAS, Rishon Lezion, Israel.
Abstract:
A popular tool in the experimental research on dishonest behavior is the die-under-the-cup (DUTC) task in which subjects roll a die in private and report the outcome to the experimenter after being promised a payoff which increases with the die's outcome. The present paper reports the results of incorporating collective punishment into the DUTC task. We ran two experiments, each involving two rounds of the task performed in a computer lab. Despite being asked not to cheat, the average reported outcome in the first round exceeded the statistical expectancy of 3.5. The second round of the first experiment involved the threat that if this happened again, each subject would be fined by the difference between the average reported outcome and 3.5. Nevertheless, the average reported outcome in the second round significantly exceeded that of the first round. Running a second experiment, this time without the punishment threat, we ruled out the possibility that the increased cheating in the second round of the first experiment was due to a feedback effect, concluding that the threat of collective punishment acted to encourage cheating rather than helped deterring it.
Related Concept Videos
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram's Obedience to Authority
Robbers Cave
Deindividuation
Punishment
Punishment can be positive or negative. Positive punishment involves adding an undesirable stimulus, such as scolding, to decrease a behavior. Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus, such as taking away a favorite toy, to decrease behavior....
Social Loafing

