ARE WE ALL NATURAL BORN CHEATERS??

Interesting results and conclusions from a Duke professor regarding cheating. I received this in an e-mail from the Character Counts website.

It demonstrates that the "lynch mob"/"witch hunt" approach of selectively picking those who should be punished for the sins of the past by changing the rules of the "judgment" game on an ex-post facto basis is clearly misguided.

The people who initiated the Salem Witch Trials thought they were acting from a perfectly sound moral position. In hindsight, maybe not so much.

The good Senator McCarthy from Minnesota thought he was operating from a perfectly reasonable position when he was using the "Red Scare" to cleanse the country from Communist influence.

People who led lynch mobs in the past honestly believed that they were protecting their loved ones from sinister forces and it turns out they were simply racists and bigots.

We’re Irrationally Predictable After All

Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke University, and author of Predictably Irrational, posted on his blog the first two questions of an exam he set:

1. My parents and grandparents would be most proud of me if:
a. I did not cheat on this exam and got the score I deserve
b. I cheated on this exam and got a score higher than the score I deserve

2. While taking this exam, I intend to:
a. cheat by looking at other people’s answers, or showing my answers to others
b. not cheat

He thinks the questions were effective, but it begs the question: Why is cheating so prevalent in society? Even when there are obvious penalties (laws and societal condemnation), there’s still an awful lot going on.

Professor Ariely says we should be tolerant of individual weakness but harsh on the system that encouraged it and give ourselves the benefit of the doubt on moral questions. For example, many people wouldn't dream of stealing because it's wrong, but they might be willing to give themselves $100 if they could justify it to themselves. You probably won't have to think hard to find examples in your own life.

That’s because we’re more likely to cheat if we see others doing so. We tend to conform to accepted social norms rather than adhere to strict rules.

While harsh external punishments usually reduce dishonesty, the internal psychology we employ (our capacity to rationalize) can lead us to cheat. Contextual cues, such as the questions posed by Professor Ariely in his exam, can further deter dishonest behaviors.

Even when we see the consequences of getting caught, some of us may still cheat if our internal reward mechanisms aren’t strong enough. One way to strengthen this is to implement a comprehensive and pervasive integrity program. Call our national office for information on our Honor Above All trainings or in-service to help you combat academic dishonesty.

WEB POLL


Breakdowns in academic integrity occur everywhere, regardless of location or income. When Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke University, gave people a math test and paid them according to how many questions they solved, he found the average number of problems people claimed to have solved increased when no proof was needed.

Are We Natural-Born Cheaters?

Last month we asked what the biggest problem in your school was. Here are the results:
Bullying 14%
Cheating 7%
Attendance 10%
Discipline 43%
All of the above 17%
Other 10%