A newly published study from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is making waves by suggesting that individuals who cheat once are significantly more likely to repeat their dishonest behaviour—contradicting the longstanding belief that cheating is merely a one-time error in judgment rather than a trait embedded in a person’s character. This finding has important implications for understanding dishonesty in everyday life and raises new questions for Thai readers about how trust and integrity function in both personal and professional relationships.
The study, led by a prominent European researcher and her team, tracked nearly 2,000 participants over a period of three years using a series of clever experimental games designed to unobtrusively measure cheating behaviour. One such experiment asked participants to write down a number from one to eight, then, after being shown a random number on a screen, respond with a “yes” or “no” as to whether their written number matched the displayed number. If it did, they would receive a small cash reward. Crucially, the researchers explicitly told participants their answers would not be double-checked, creating an environment where lying had no apparent consequences (VICE).
What the researchers found was striking: individuals who cheated even once during these tasks were far more likely to do so again—regardless of how the rules or reward structures changed. According to the research team, cheating persisted across different scenarios, suggesting the presence of a stable personality trait rather than situational opportunism.
This study is especially relevant for Thai readers in both personal and institutional contexts. It challenges the popular cultural narrative that “anyone can make a mistake” and highlights the importance of recognizing consistent patterns of dishonesty. In Thai society, where face and social harmony are highly valued, accusations of dishonesty can be especially sensitive. Nevertheless, the findings urge educators, employers, and even family members to consider recurring dishonest behaviour as a warning sign rather than a mere anomaly.
The research supports the growing body of evidence that some people are “habitual cheaters.” Two major predictors of consistent dishonesty were identified: low “Honesty-Humility” and high levels of what psychologists call the “Dark Factor”—a combination of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. People who scored low on honesty and humility were much more likely to see cheating as acceptable, while those with high “Dark Factor” traits saw lying, cheating, and stealing as justifiable ways of getting ahead (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).
Surprisingly, this study runs counter to long-established ideas in psychology that behaviour is largely dictated by external situations rather than stable personality traits. While situational pressures—like stress, financial difficulty, or peer influence—can lead anyone to cheat, this new research asserts that for many, dishonesty is not just a response to the circumstance but a way of life.
A Thai senior lecturer in behavioral sciences at a leading Bangkok university commented, “This research urges us to reconsider the emphasis we place on rehabilitating cheaters through apologies or ‘second chances.’ For chronic offenders, this may not be a matter of education or opportunity but a core aspect of personality.” She warns that Thai organizations should heed these findings when hiring and promoting staff, particularly in sensitive sectors like banking, healthcare, and education.
The implications stretch beyond individual relationships and into broader social policy. In recent years, Thailand has increased efforts to build public trust in sectors such as healthcare and education, where confidence in leaders’ honesty is paramount. Integrity and anti-corruption initiatives have been on the rise, but this research suggests that screening processes should also include measures of personality and integrity, not just technical qualifications or clean criminal records. The Thai National Anti-Corruption Commission has described dishonesty as a “cultural and structural challenge,” underscoring the study’s relevance (NACC Thailand).
Historically, Thai society places great emphasis on forgiveness and the chance for personal reform. Buddhism, the majority religion in Thailand, teaches the possibility of redemption through right actions and intention. This research, however, invites reflection on whether those who habitually cheat can—or should—be treated differently from those who commit a single transgression. “We must find a balance between forgiveness and prudence,” said a social development expert from a Thailand-based research institute.
Looking forward, the study calls for new, evidence-based approaches in both public and private spheres. Employers might consider integrating integrity assessments into recruitment and promotion processes. Educators could introduce honesty and ethics training earlier in the school system, paired with ongoing observation for patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents. Parents, too, are encouraged to recognize repeat patterns of dishonest behaviour in children and take proactive steps in teaching the long-term value of honesty.
Practical recommendations for Thai readers include: when evaluating trustworthiness, look for consistent patterns over time rather than giving undue weight to one-off apologies. In organisations, consider implementing anonymous whistleblower systems and ongoing character assessment as part of internal controls. At home, open family discussions about the consequences of dishonesty and the importance of “honesty-humility” can help instill positive values from a young age. Ultimately, as the study shows, addressing dishonesty requires more than just forgiveness for a mistake—it demands ongoing vigilance and a willingness to face uncomfortable truths about human nature.
For further details, see the original report in VICE.