Do bad people eventually get what they deserve? Or is that just empty consolation? Are wrongful acts committed only by bad people? Or could the situation be more complex than that?
Research shows that the matter is far more complicated than assumed, and that displaying such behaviors is almost part of human nature itself. After all, it is a well-known fact that many living creatures survive by disguising themselves, hiding from enemies, or scaring them off. Moreover, hunting, which is an indispensable necessity for survival, essentially involves deceiving prey. (One of the most skillful creatures in this regard, the octopus, has been the subject of the documentary My Octopus Teacher).
It is often thought that what prevents people from cheating, deceiving, or acting outside the rules is the cost-benefit balance. The concept of The Simple Model of Rational Crime belongs to Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker (1992) (1). Becker once decided to park his car illegally, accepting the risk of a fine so as not to be late for an important job interview. He later generalized this approach, comparing the benefits and costs of wrongful behavior, into a theoretical model. We often see in print and visual media the opinion that increasing penalties, which means increasing the cost of wrongdoing, will prevent rule-breaking. However, new research has revealed that the cost-benefit approach has very limited validity when it comes to cheating and unethical behavior (2).
Humans want to both look in the mirror and see themselves as respected members of society and feel good about it, and also take advantage of special opportunities that arise even at the expense of others. This is popularly expressed as “I want to have my cake and eat it too.” Ultimately, these are contradictory desires. Yet, thanks to our flexible mental abilities and talent for rationalization, we come to believe that a little cheating or bending the rules will neither harm our respectability nor stop us from benefiting from the opportunity. For example, one politician once justified nepotism by claiming it was a commandment of the holy book.
If There Is No Money, It Is Not Considered Theft!
The first factor that makes it easier for people to cheat, lie, deceive, and deliberately violate rules is the absence of money. Taking something of material value that is not money is not perceived as theft. In one study, six cans of soda and six one-dollar bills were left in a student dormitory. After 72 hours, the money was untouched, but the sodas were gone. This is similar to the father who scolds his son for being punished at school for taking a friend’s pen and says, “If you need pens, tell me, I can bring you as many as you want from the office.” Once the direct link to money is broken, it becomes easier to rationalize dishonest behavior. This is why employees in the financial sector or digital environments who exploit clients’ accounts without their knowledge do not feel responsibility for their theft.
Social Acceptance and Creativity
When many people in a society cheat or break rules, such behavior gains social acceptance and encourages others to act similarly. Regardless of social status, swearing in an environment where everyone swears is not considered rude. For this reason, hearing obscenities in the “protocol tribune” (formerly called the Honor Tribune) of football stadiums, where distinguished guests are hosted, is not surprising. Likewise, in a high school where all final-year students submit false medical reports to prepare for university exams, such behavior is not seen as fraud. As a result, daily news of corruption involving wealthy individuals, top bureaucrats, and politicians normalizes these actions and makes it more acceptable for so-called honest citizens to bend the rules a little when given the chance. Some even legitimize corruption by saying, “At least they work, even if they steal.” Newspapers frequently report cases where a low-level bureaucrat caught taking bribes says, “Look at the big guys up there who take far more.”. In Turkey, bribery is known to be widespread, and everyone complains about it. Yet, the real discomfort of most who complain is not that bribery exists, but that they themselves are excluded from it.
Creative individuals rationalize their rule-breaking more effectively, invent better stories, and thus feel no guilt. Research shows that accountants, being less creative than advertising professionals, also show less dishonest behavior (3)(4).
The Number of People Who Deviate from the Truth
Cheating and deception are only weakly related to cost-benefit analysis. These are not acts committed solely by a handful of bad people. A prime example from the financial sector is the Enron scandal, extensively documented in books and films. Many people inside and around Enron ignored the wrongdoing and took advantage of the opportunities it presented. This is known as “willful blindness.” As J.P. Barlow, a consultant at Enron at the time, said: “The employees here developed an ideology that prevented them from seeing reality.” In fact, this went beyond willful blindness and became “active blindness.”. In Ariely’s long-term study involving 30,000 participants, it was found that 12 brazen cheaters caused a cost of 1,500 dollars to the group, while 18,000 mild cheaters caused a cost of 36,000 dollars. This reflects the real situation in society. In developed economies, the majority of social losses do not come from a few rotten apples, but from ordinary, respectable individuals bending the rules just a little. By contrast, in developing economies where corruption is widespread and normalized, businesspeople in cooperation with the state exploit every opportunity, plundering the country. The result is an unfair distribution of already low national income and widespread poverty.
Conclusion
Trusting people is important for maintaining inner peace. However, when trusting others, remember that deception is part of human nature and take into account the margin of deviation from honesty in those around you. Therefore, without damaging your relationships, do not abandon oversight, and try to minimize situations that might allow dishonesty. In doing so, you will protect not only yourself but also those you are connected with.
(*) This article was adapted from the book Akılsız Duyguların Cezasını Kararlar Çeker published by Remzi Kitabevi.
Sources
- University of Chicago Nobel Prize [İnternet]. Uygun erişim: http://home.uchicago.edu/gbecker/Nobel/nobel.html
- Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D. Contagion and differentiation in unethical behaviour: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science 2009; 20(3): 393- 398.
- Gino F, Ariely D. The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012; 102(3): 445-459.
- Ariely D. The (honest) truth about dishonesty. HarperCollins Publishers; 2012.
