We can believe in our honesty – and at the same time, from time to time to scold a little. Psychologist Dan Arieli explains why our “moral code” fails.
Every day, reading news, we see examples of fraud. We are indignant by learning that another businessman or official was caught by theft. However, studies show that not large scammers, but ordinary citizens, cause the greatest damage to society. People who consider themselves good workers and honest people, but at the same time allow themselves to fraud a little. So, 30 thousand people took part in my experiment on honesty. Only 12 of them were ready for a large scam. They stole $ 150 with me. Most were deceiving in trifles, it cost me 36 thousand dollars.
According to economic theory, the profitability of deception is easy to calculate: it is necessary to estimate, what is the probability that you will be caught, what will be the benefit and what is the punishment in the event of exposure. It remains to weigh the options, carry out a simple analysis of costs and benefits and, as a result, decide whether the misconduct or not. We tried to test it. We ranged the size of the rate, that is, the amount of money that participants in the experiment can steal. It would be possible to expect that there would be more deception with the growth of the rate, but in reality this did not happen. Most people were deceived and stolen a little. What about the probability of being caught? It can be assumed that the less probability to be exposed, the greater the size of the fraud, but in reality it is not. The majority deceived only a little, and economic incentives did not affect the result.
If we are insensitive to rational economic explanations of what is really happening? We suggested that there are two forces. On the one hand, we do not want to feel remorse, looking at ourselves in the mirror, and therefore do not want to cheat. On the other hand, if we deceive the trifles (as it seems to us), we may not feel remorse. Probably, the fact is that we all have some boundaries of permissible deception that we cannot step over. We can gradually fraud, but only until it changes our opinion about ourselves. I call it a personal error.
What factors affect our error? We asked part of the participants in the experiment to recall the ten books that they read at school, and others to recall ten biblical commandments. Then we tempted them with deception. It turned out that those who tried to recall the commandments, having the opportunity to deceive, did not do this. And even when we asked those who declared themselves atheists to swear on the Bible and then gave them a chance to deceive, they did not deceive at all. Maybe it’s not only about religion? Another time, we asked the participants to sign the following text: “I realize that this small survey falls under the code of honor of my university”. Then they tore the paper. There was no deception in this case.
But the situation that can increase our personal error. What will you feel if you take home a pencil from work? And if you take from the cash desk, comparable to the cost of a pencil? These actions are felt in completely different ways, although the damage from them is the same. Subjectively we feel the theft of a pencil as
a less serious misconduct. The more our fraud is specific, calculated in nature, the stronger the internal resistance. And vice versa, the more intermediaries between us and money, the more condescendingly we relate to the possibility of deception.