ARIELY ON CHEATING ... We cheat/act dishonestly far less than the SMORC ... cheat. ⢠10 Commandments/Bible. ⢠Honor
Chea%ng at SHS Possible Solu+ons Jake Marglous
Dan Ariely • Behavioral Economist • Duke University Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics • Former appointments at UC Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton, MIT
ARIELY ON CHEATING
The SMORC • Simple Model of Ra%onal Crime -- standard economic model of chea%ng • Premise: weigh benefits of harmful behavior against combina%on of possible harms and the likelihood of being caught, then make ra%onal decision based on self-interest. • Preven%on: increase likelihood of being caught and s%ffen punishments.
Problems With the SMORC • Ariely points out that… – We cheat/act dishonestly far less than the SMORC would predict. – We are uncomfortable with immoral behavior. – The SMORC suggests immoral behavior would increase with poten%al value, but low-level behavior is far more common (we’d all steal a pencil, but not cash)
The “Fudge Factor” Thesis • “Our behavior is driven by two opposing mo%va%ons. On one hand, we want to view ourselves as honest, honorable people. We want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about ourselves… On the other hand, we want to benefit from chea%ng… As long as we cheat by only a liUle bit, we can benefit from chea%ng and s%ll view ourselves as marvelous human beings…it is the basis of what we’ll call the ‘fudge factor theory’…All of us con%nuously try to iden%fy the line where we can benefit from dishonesty without damaging our own self-image.”
The Locksmith • “One percent of people will always be honest and never steal. Another one percent will always be dishonest and always try to pick your lock and steal your television. And the rest will be honest as long as the condi%ons are right – but if they are tempted enough, they’ll be dishonest too.” • What can we do for the 98% of students?
Limi%ng the Fudge Factor • “Dishonesty is largely driven by a person’s fudge factor and not by the SMORC. The fudge factor suggests that if we want to take a bite out of crime, we need to find a way to change the way in which we are able to ra%onalize our ac%ons… When our ability to raDonalize our acDons is reduced, our fudge factor shrinks, making us less comfortable with misbehaving and cheaDng.”
Benefits of an Honor Code • Ariely’s findings: – Reminders of moral codes make us less likely to cheat. • 10 Commandments/Bible • Honor code signatures before ac%vity
The Princeton Example • Princeton has strict honor code – Incoming freshmen aUend mee%ngs/talks and sign leUer from Honor CommiUee. – At end of every paper: “This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regula%ons.” – On every test: “I pledge my honor that I have not violated the honor code during this examina%on.” – Biannual email reminders.
The Princeton Example • Princeton students not asked to sign an honesty pledge immediately before performing an ac%vity were as likely as others to cheat. – Effec%veness of handbook/assemblies?
Timing of Pledge • “Signatures at the top of forms could also act as a moral prophylac%c.” – More experiments – Insurance company
• Students need to sign honor code before they have the opportunity to cheat.
A final Point • “One important ques%on about the usage of moral reminders is whether over %me people will get used to signing such honor codes, causing such reminders to lose their effec%veness. That is why I think that the right approach is to ask people to write their own version of the honor code – that way it will be difficult to sign without thinking about morality, and more ethical behavior should follow.”
Conclusions • An honor code is an easy-to-implement solu%on with clear benefits. • Students should sign an honor code before the opportunity to cheat presents itself. – Signature on study guide?
• Students should be asked to write their own statement each %me. • Remember that 1% of students that will con%nue to cheat – this is not a catch-all.
