What Makes Us Cheat? Three Classic Experiments from Behavioral Economics.

Watch entertaining reconstructions of classic experiments demonstrating our predisposition toward dishonesty.

What Makes Us Cheat? Three Classic Experiments from Behavioral Economics.

Dan Ariely, the psychologist who popularised behavioral economics, has made a fascinating documentary with director Yael Melamede exploring what makes us dishonest. I’ve just finished watching it and it’s something of a masterpiece of psychological storytelling, delving deep into contemporary tales of dishonesty, and supporting its narrative with cunningly designed experiments that have been neatly reconstructed for the film camera.


Below are three excerpts I selected in which Ariely and his co-authors walk us through some of their most thought-provoking experiments and discuss their implications, reproduced here with the permission of the filmmaker.

The Matrix Experiments

Most people cheat a little bit, cumulatively this low-level cheating dwarfs the economic impact of those who cheat a lot.

The Human Capacity for Self-Deception

Most people believe they are somewhat better than average; not only is this statistically impossible, but also even when we know full well that we are cheating, we’ll still fool ourselves into believing otherwise. Our self-evaluation remains distorted even when our own money is at stake, a principle known as the optimism bias.

Social Norms

Whether or not we cheat has less to do with the probability of being caught, than whether or not we feel cheating is socially acceptable within our social circle.

For more of the above, I recommend watching Ariely’s film - (Dis)Honesty – The Truth About Lies, which includes more experiments from behavioral economics described in detail, along with some fascinating case studies from professional cheaters: athletes who’ve been caught doping, bankers who’ve been jailed for insider trading, and partners caught stepping out on their significant others. 

Full disclosure: I received a free review copy of the film from the producers.

Follow Simon Oxenham @Neurobonkers on TwitterFacebookRSS or join the mailing list, for weekly analysis of science and psychology news. 

A historian identifies the worst year in human history

A Harvard professor's study discovers the worst year to be alive.

The Triumph of Death. 1562.

Credit: Pieter Bruegel the Elder. (Museo del Prado).
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Harvard professor Michael McCormick argues the worst year to be alive was 536 AD.
  • The year was terrible due to cataclysmic eruptions that blocked out the sun and the spread of the plague.
  • 536 ushered in the coldest decade in thousands of years and started a century of economic devastation.
Keep reading Show less

The Einstein-Bohr legacy: can we ever figure out what quantum theory means?

Quantum theory has weird implications. Trying to explain them just makes things weirder.

Credit: dani3315 / 269881579 via Adobe Stock
13-8
  • The weirdness of quantum theory flies in the face of what we experience in our everyday lives.
  • Quantum weirdness quickly created a split in the physics community, each side championed by a giant: Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.
  • As two recent books espousing opposing views show, the debate still rages on nearly a century afterward. Each "resolution" comes with a high price tag.
Keep reading Show less

Pupil size surprisingly linked to differences in intelligence

Maybe eyes really are windows into the soul — or at least into the brain, as a new study finds.

A woman's eye.

Credit: Adobe stock / Chris Tefme
Surprising Science
  • Researchers find a correlation between pupil size and differences in cognitive ability.
  • The larger the pupil, the higher the intelligence.
  • The explanation for why this happens lies within the brain, but more research is needed.
Keep reading Show less
Politics & Current Affairs

We are all conspiracy theorists

In each of our minds, we draw a demarcation line between beliefs that are reasonable and those that are nonsense. Where do you draw your line?

Quantcast