A new study from the University of Amsterdam has provided empirical support for the notion that individuals are more likely to break rules when they observe others doing the same, highlighting how social context influences decision-making behavior. The research, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, examined how people respond to rule-breaking when it occurs within their peer group, with a particular focus on political affiliation.

The experiment involved 750 participants from the United States, roughly evenly split between self-identified Republicans and Democrats. Participants were engaged in an online task where they viewed an animated “shooting star” moving across a sequence of 100 squares, each lighting up with varying intensities. Participants were instructed to select the square that appeared brightest in order to receive a monetary reward.

However, the task was designed so that participants could receive a greater financial incentive by selecting squares positioned further to the right of the brightest square, effectively encouraging subtle rule-breaking. Smaller rewards were given for squares to the left, aligning with fair play rules. After each round, participants were informed about the choices of another player, including whether they adhered to or violated the rules, the degree of any rule-breaking, and the other player’s political affiliation. Participants were given the option to revise their selections over six rounds.

Results showed that many individuals initially engaged in some degree of rule-breaking, but observing others affect adherence to rules had significant effects. When participants saw others following the rules, they tended to reduce their own rule-breaking. Conversely, witnessing minor infractions by others slightly increased participants’ willingness to break rules themselves. Importantly, exposure to blatant rule violations—such as selecting squares far beyond the brightest one—prompted participants to significantly increase their own rule-breaking behavior.

The tendency to emulate rule-breaking was stronger when participants observed violations from individuals who shared their political views, suggesting that social identity plays a role in how individuals conform to or resist rule-breaking behavior. Dr. Lucas Molleman, the study’s lead author, emphasized that decisions often perceived as autonomous are in fact heavily influenced by social cues, including political alignment.

This research offers new insights into how unethical or non-compliant behavior can spread within groups, contributing to broader discussions about the dynamics of rule-breaking in various social and professional settings.