Dan Ariely points out the irrationality of the human mind and the flaws in our moral code. Through a large set of experiments, he discovered some interesting trends in cheating:
1. There aren't a few people that cheat a lot; rather many people cheat just a little
2. Even when the amount of money per question claimed answered increases, people cheat the same amount
3. Reminding people of their morality makes them cheat less
4. When people are offered tokens instead of money, they cheat more (when the distance from money increases, cheating increases)
5. Obvious cheating by one person in a group increases cheating within that group
I found these trends to be interesting and surprising. Regarding Ariely's first discovery, there were no significant outliers of either extreme cheaters or particularly morally righteous people who affected the results. Pretty much everyone acted in the same way. Surely if people were aware of the experiment being conducted, they would act accordingly to how they wanted to be perceived. But without that influence, people acted without thought to how other people would react to their actions, and they all essentially responded the same way. No one wants to hear that they have the same morally flawed logic as everyone else, but it seems like the majority of us do. And why not? If we are all raised within the same or similar cultures and have the same basic chemical make-up, why wouldn't we act similarly? But no one likes to think of it this way; we would all rather prefer to believe we are tremendously unique.
I was most surprised by Ariely's second point: even when people were offered more money for each question they answered (on a range from $.05 to $10 each), the amount of cheating remained the same. I would have thought that people would cheat more when more money was at stake because I don't see the point in lying for the gain of $.10. The risk outweighs the potential benefit. On the other hand, $20 is a pretty significant amount of money. So why doesn't the amount of cheating change? Perhaps because as the amount of money increases, the fallout from getting caught increases, as do our feelings of guilt. Conversely, the less money there is at stake, the less of a fallout there is from getting caught, and the less guilt we feel for taking such a small amount (equally less risk and reward). So perhaps these factors even out to produce this result. Or perhaps humans are much more simple than we would like to think, and we just cheat the same amount regardless of how much money is offered because we don't actually care to weigh all of these factors. However, I believe it's a bit more complicated than that considering how much people over-think so many things and how much subconscious thought seems to go into all of our decisions.
I also thought it was rather heartening to learn that cheating was altogether nonexistent when people were reminded of their morality. Even when self-proclaimed atheists were asked to swear on a bible before taking their quiz, there were no instances of cheating. Just asking someone not to cheat most often results in them not cheating (at least according to Ariely's experiments). So then why is there so much cheating in school/college when we're constantly being told not to? Perhaps it's due to the fact that in Ariely's experiments, people were simply offered extra money for questions answered, while in school, it's often felt as a necessity to get a good grade. Since there is such a massive emphasis on the importance of a good grade, students feel that the moral violation of cheating and even feelings of guilt are well worth it. However, I believe this exposes a greater flaw in our education system than it does in the students.
The reaction to cheating within groups was also interesting. Within a group of Carnegie-Mellon students, if a paid actor was told to overtly cheat while wearing a Carnegie-Mellon sweatshirt, cheating increased, but if the actor wore a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt, cheating among the CM students decreased. People have an innate sense of competition, and in this case they all felt the individual need to be on a morally higher ground than an individual outside of their group. But then when one of their own cheated, they viewed it as justification to cheat themselves. Even when thinking individually, this body of people acted in the same way.
Finally, Ariely brought up the point that people would greatly benefit from testing their own intuitions. Generally, people take their intuitions to be true without thinking about it, but this can result in unproductive and even harmful practices. I believe humans are a generally vain species, and it would do well of us to question ourselves every once in a while.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Dan Ariely: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
No comments:
Post a Comment