Researchers created a mock scenario in which study participants were randomly assigned to one of two roles: solver or grader. Each solver was also randomly assigned to a grader. Participants in both roles became either \u2018\u2018wealthy\u2019\u2019 or \u2018\u2018poor\u2019\u2019 through a lottery in which they had a 50% probability of winning $20. This lottery, together with the random pairing of solvers and graders, created four pair types: wealthy grader and wealthy solver; poor grader and poor solver; wealthy grader and poor solver; and poor grader and wealthy solver. After the lottery, solvers solved multiple anagrams. Graders then graded solvers\u2019 work. Graders had the opportunity to dishonestly help or hurt solvers by misreporting their performance. If a grader overstated a solver\u2019s performance, then the solver earned undeserved money. If the grader understated the solver\u2019s performance, then the solver did not earn deserved money.<\/p>\n
The results: When a wealthy grader was assigned to a poor solver, the grader overwhelmingly misreported the score to help the solver (about 70% of the time). When a wealthy grader was assigned to a wealthy solver, the grader nearly always reported the score honestly (90%). \u00a0On the other side of the coin, when a poor grader was assigned to a poor solver, the grader nearly always misreported the score to help (95%). When a poor grader was assigned to a wealthy solver, however, the grader misreported the score negatively to hurt the solver about 30% of the time. A graph of the results is below.<\/p>\n
![\"Graph\"](\"http:\/\/neuronarrative.files.wordpress.com\/2009\/08\/graph1.jpg?w=500&h=328\")
<\/p>\n
The reasons for these results, the researchers surmise, are less about financial self interest and more about emotional responses to inequity.\u00a0 Individuals increase their dishonest hurting behavior and reduce their helping behavior when they are worse off than the other person.\u00a0 Conversely, they increase dishonest helping behavior when they are better off than the other person.<\/p>\n
What we seem to be back to with this study is the realization that we\u2019re not so rational after all.\u00a0 Dishonesty, in either direction, appears to be motivated by emotional reaction more than rational evaluations of self interest \u2013 at least in the context of relatively small sums of money (it would be interesting to see what would happen if we jacked the amount up a few hundred bucks).<\/p>\n
So,\u00a0not to forget about\u00a0Wendel \u2013 how\u2019d he make out in your mind?<\/p>\n
Source: Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the Name of Equity Psychological Science<\/span> DOI: 10.1111\/j.1467-9280.2009.02421.x<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n —————————- David DiSalvo is a science and technology writer who regularly blogs at\u00a0Neuronarrative<\/a> and Brainspin on the\u00a0True\/Slant network<\/a>. He is also a freelance writer for Scientific American Mind magazine.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n