We can believe in our honesty — and at the same time cheat a little from time to time. Psychologist Dan Ariely explains why our «moral code» fails.
Every day when we read the news, we see examples of deceit. We are indignant when we learn that another businessman or official has been caught stealing. However, studies show that the greatest damage to society is caused not by large fraudsters, but by ordinary citizens. People who consider themselves good employees and honest people, but at the same time allow themselves to cheat a little. So, 30 thousand people took part in my experiment on honesty. Only 12 of them were ready for a major scam. They stole $150 from me. Most cheated on trifles, it cost me 36 thousand dollars.
- We want to know the truth!
According to economic theory, the profitability of deception is easy to calculate: you need to figure out what is the probability that you will be caught, what will be the benefit and what is the punishment in case of exposure. It remains to weigh the options, conduct a simple cost-benefit analysis and, as a result, decide whether the wrongdoing is worth it or not. We tried to test it. We varied the size of the bet, that is, the amount of money that the participants in the experiment can steal. One would expect that with an increase in the rate of deception there would be more, but in reality this did not happen. Most people both cheated and stole a little. What about the likelihood of being caught? It can be assumed that the less likely to be exposed, the greater the size of the deception, but in reality this is not the case. Most cheated only a little, and economic incentives did not affect the outcome.
If we are insensitive to rational economic explanations, what is really going on? We assumed that there are two forces. On the one hand, we do not want to feel remorse when looking at ourselves in the mirror, and therefore do not want to deceive. On the other hand, if we cheat over trifles (as we think), we may feel no remorse. Perhaps the point is that we all have some limits of acceptable deception that we cannot cross. We can cheat a little, but only until it changes our opinion of ourselves. I call it personal error.
- Good characters teach honesty better than fear of punishment.
What factors affect our margin of error? We asked some of the participants in the experiment to recall the ten books they had read in school, and others to recall the ten biblical commandments. Then we tempted them with deceit. It turned out that those who tried to remember the commandments, having the opportunity to deceive, did not. And even when we asked professed atheists to swear on the Bible and then gave them a chance to cheat, they didn’t cheat at all. Maybe it’s not just about religion? On another occasion, we asked participants to sign the following text: «I recognize that this little survey falls under my university’s code of honor.» Then they tore the paper. There was no deception in this case.
And here is a situation that can increase our personal error. How would you feel if you took a pencil home from work? And if you take from the cash desk an amount comparable to the cost of a pencil? These actions feel completely different, although the damage from them is the same. Subjectively, we perceive the theft of a pencil as a less serious offense. The more our machinations are concrete, quantifiable, the stronger the internal resistance. Conversely, the more intermediaries between us and money, the more lenient we are about the possibility of deception.
Now imagine how our attitude to deceit changes with the transition to cashless payments. I think that the catastrophic prevalence of financial fraud is connected precisely with this. People are increasingly dealing with what separates them from real money — credit cards, stocks, securities. We cease to realize how serious the consequences are behind our actions. Even experienced financiers fail intuition, and they do not notice the approach of the crisis.
One reason for this irrational behavior is our belief in our own intuition. The power of intuition extends to everything in the world: our abilities, the way the economy works, how a school teacher should be paid. If we learn to test our intuition and ask ourselves what the real, measurable consequences of our actions will be, we will make decisions more rationally.
Dan Ariely, psychologist, author of Behavioral Economics. Why people behave irrationally and how to make money on it” (MIF, 2012). A recording of the lecture can be heard at www.ted.com
- How sincere are you?
- Are you a manipulator?
- What are your moral principles?