A new study published in the journal "Nature Human Behaviour" challenges the findings of a previous high-profile study that suggested that winners are more likely to cheat. The new study, conducted by researchers at the University of Zurich and the University of Bern, found no evidence to support the claim that winners are more likely to engage in unethical behavior.

The previous study, published in 2018, had found that participants who won a competition were more likely to cheat on a subsequent task than those who lost. The researchers had interpreted this finding as evidence that winning can lead to a sense of entitlement and a decreased concern for ethical behavior.

However, the new study found no such link between winning and cheating. In fact, the researchers found that the opposite was true: participants who lost a competition were more likely to cheat on a subsequent task than those who won.

The researchers suggest that the difference between their findings and those of the previous study may be due to the fact that the previous study used a different type of competition. In the previous study, participants competed against each other in a zero-sum game, in which only one person could win. In the new study, participants competed against a computer in a non-zero-sum game, in which everyone could win.

The researchers argue that the competitive nature of the zero-sum game may have led participants in the previous study to feel more entitled to win and less concerned about ethical behavior. In contrast, the non-zero-sum game used in the new study may have created a more cooperative atmosphere, in which participants were less likely to feel the need to cheat.

The new study provides important evidence that challenges the claim that winners are more likely to cheat. It suggests that the relationship between winning and cheating is more complex than previously thought and that the type of competition may play a role in determining whether or not winners are more likely to engage in unethical behavior.