Speaker 1: This is episode one hundred and seventy seven of the
Speaker 1: Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast. Lying to Ourselves Why We Cheat?
Speaker 1: By Richard J. Poupard. This article first appeared in the
Speaker 1: print edition of the Christian Research Journal, Volume forty one,
Speaker 1: number two in twenty eighteen. The Christian Research Journal Reads
Speaker 1: Podcast presents audio versions of Christian Research Journal articles. To
Speaker 1: read the full text of this article and its documentation,
Speaker 1: please go to equip dot org. That's e qu ip dotrg.
Speaker 2: Lying to Ourselves Why We Cheat? This article is by
Speaker 2: Richard J. Poupar and is read by an automated voice.
Speaker 2: A few years ago I began to train for distance
Speaker 2: running races. During that time, I read an article about
Speaker 2: a runner named Kip Luton. I was taken by the
Speaker 2: fact that Kip and I had so much in common.
Speaker 2: He is a dental professional practicing in Central Michigan, discovered
Speaker 2: running in his middle age and has competed in many races.
Speaker 2: How it's inspired initially by his story. He has a
Speaker 2: child with cystic fibrosis and attempted to raise money for
Speaker 2: that cost based on his running accomplishments. His goal was
Speaker 2: to run a marathon twenty six point two miles under
Speaker 2: three hours in every state, a finished time that very
Speaker 2: few runners can accomplish for a single race. I also
Speaker 2: noted significant differences between Kip and me. Not only is
Speaker 2: he a faster athlete, there were some interesting and surprising
Speaker 2: facts about the races he ran. When the running community
Speaker 2: began to investigate his results, anomaly surfaced. He did not
Speaker 2: register a time when he passed through the various timing
Speaker 2: mats other than the start. In finish mats, he only
Speaker 2: appeared in pictures taken at the start or finish line.
Speaker 2: He frequently changed outfits or shoes during races. He even
Speaker 2: made up an entire race to claim a win. In
Speaker 2: other words, it was evidence that he cheated in most,
Speaker 2: if at all, the races he entered. It is difficult
Speaker 2: to contemplate the amount of time, effort, and money that
Speaker 2: it took to undertake his cheating endeavor, all done without
Speaker 2: apparent tangible benefit. What would convince someone with impressive professional
Speaker 2: accomplishments to expend considerable effort to cheat? How often does
Speaker 2: this happen despite the efforts of race directors to stop it.
Speaker 2: Cheating and running races is not only common, but increasing.
Speaker 2: An entire website has been created that details many cheating cases.
Speaker 2: Some cheaters attempt to qualify for the prestigious Boston Narrathon
Speaker 2: or obtain a winner's medal, but most simply cheat to
Speaker 2: post a time faster than they are capable of running.
Speaker 2: In other words, a cheat for a no tangible reason.
Speaker 2: Since cheating in something as unimportant as an individual sporting
Speaker 2: event is common, what about cheating in other areas? When
Speaker 2: cheating scandals make the news, they are presented as uncommon
Speaker 2: but significant in magnitude. We justifiably are angry when companies
Speaker 2: such as Enron or individuals such as Burning Matof cheat
Speaker 2: investors out of significant amounts of money, but most believe
Speaker 2: that they themselves are honest. Is cheating a result of
Speaker 2: low moral standards of a minority, so we tend to
Speaker 2: cheat when we are sure we can get away with it.
Speaker 2: More interesting, what does our propensity to cheat reveal about
Speaker 2: our hearts and attitude towards sin, as well as our
Speaker 2: ability to gauge our own capacity to bend the rules?
Speaker 2: Occasionally the rational model smork. It is no surprise that
Speaker 2: human beings cheat and break rules. Behavioral economists have sought
Speaker 2: to explain this using the simple model of rational crime smork.
Speaker 2: Individuals cheat by making a rational decision reviewing the potential
Speaker 2: benefit of cheating with the risk of being caught and
Speaker 2: the punishment of caught. For example, many cheat on reporting
Speaker 2: their taxable income if they perceive the risk of being
Speaker 2: caught very low, or if the punishment is worth the risk. However,
Speaker 2: few individuals will rob a convenience store because the gain
Speaker 2: is small that the risk of being caught and punished
Speaker 2: is large. If this theory is true, the most effective
Speaker 2: way to decrease cheating is to decrease the ability to
Speaker 2: cheat and increase the penalty of caught. Economist Dan Airily
Speaker 2: has designed research tests to test the smart theory. He
Speaker 2: made a series of math tests in which participants were
Speaker 2: given twenty questions but only a short amount of time
Speaker 2: to solve them. They were paid for each question they
Speaker 2: correctly answered. One group had their scores calculated by the
Speaker 2: procter of the test. Another group was asked to self
Speaker 2: report the number of problems they answered correctly. The students
Speaker 2: were then instructed to place their test paper into a shredder,
Speaker 2: which secretly stored the papers untouched. In other words, the
Speaker 2: members of the second group were led to believe they
Speaker 2: could cheat without being caught. By comparing the two groups,
Speaker 2: the experimenters could determine the percentage of the st students
Speaker 2: who cheated and the extent of the cheating. The expected
Speaker 2: result was that a small number of students would choose
Speaker 2: to cheat a great deal. The results were surprising. Students
Speaker 2: who had their tests corrected by the proctor averaged for
Speaker 2: correct answers. The group that could cheat reported six correct answers,
Speaker 2: clearly indicating many of them might about their actual score Unpredictably,
Speaker 2: it was not a small number of students who cheated
Speaker 2: a huge amount that caused this disparity. Almost everyone who
Speaker 2: had the opportunity to cheat did so. However, they cheated
Speaker 2: only by a little Almost no one reported solving all
Speaker 2: twenty questions, even though they could do so without being detected. Also,
Speaker 2: almost no one reported their score honestly. Given an opportunity
Speaker 2: to cheat, most people will do so, but only by
Speaker 2: a small amount. Very few people are completely honest, and
Speaker 2: very few will cheat a great deal even if there
Speaker 2: is little or no chance of being caught. This experiment
Speaker 2: has been repeated, changing many variables. For example, if you
Speaker 2: increase the financial reward for cheating. Smork predicts that cheating
Speaker 2: should increase. Experiments showed the opposite. Cheating went down slightly
Speaker 2: when the financial stakes increased. Another experiment reminded the students
Speaker 2: of a moral code before taking the test. By having
Speaker 2: them sign an honor code before beginning the test, cheating
Speaker 2: went down significantly. In fact, this was the most effective
Speaker 2: way to decrease the amount of cheating on the test.
Speaker 2: What are we to make of these results? Aerially postulates
Speaker 2: that most of us wish to view ourselves as a
Speaker 2: moral person. We want to look in the mirror and
Speaker 2: have a positive feeling about who we see. Therefore, when
Speaker 2: presented with an opportunity to cheat, we will choose to
Speaker 2: cheat only to the amount that we can still feel
Speaker 2: that we are generally a good person. He describes this
Speaker 2: as a personal fudge factor. Therefore, increasing the financial benefit
Speaker 2: of cheating has the opposite effect. As expected, we are
Speaker 2: comfortable fudging a small amount, but as the rewards increase,
Speaker 2: we feel worse about the cheating and we feel immral. Likewise,
Speaker 2: reminding individuals of an objective moral code is effective in
Speaker 2: decreasing their personal fudge factor. The quick reminder makes it
Speaker 2: more difficult to justify cheating and feel honest. Still, the
Speaker 2: religious affiliation of the students had no bearing on the
Speaker 2: amount of cheating that was done in these studies. As
Speaker 2: followers of Christ and believers of objective moral truth, we
Speaker 2: may convince ourselves that, given the opportunity, we would be
Speaker 2: able to resist the temptation to be dishonest. This does
Speaker 2: not appear to be true. We should be aware of
Speaker 2: our propensity to fudge the truth when it benefits us.
Speaker 2: Although we believe such behavior is wrong, we now only
Speaker 2: tend to succumb to temptation. That also convince ourselves that
Speaker 2: we are still pit people who please God. If we
Speaker 2: don't cheat too much. That should give us pause when
Speaker 2: considering our own life and the ideals by which we
Speaker 2: claim to live. What type of fudge factor are we
Speaker 2: personally willing to tolerate that will allow us to believe
Speaker 2: we are living good and upstanding moral lives. The answer
Speaker 2: should be zero. The fact that it is not reflect
Speaker 2: on our need for Christ, regardless of how moral we
Speaker 2: view our lives. Frankly, we lie of ourselves about our
Speaker 2: goodness irrational cheating. During these experiments, there was a clear
Speaker 2: benefit from fudging the correct number of answers. However, what
Speaker 2: are we to think about situations in which people lie
Speaker 2: and cheat where there does not seem to be any
Speaker 2: tangible benefit, such as Lowten's marathon cheating. What about the
Speaker 2: cases in which cheating is not only unprofitable, but takes
Speaker 2: a significant investment of time, money, energy, and risk of
Speaker 2: perform even more than the smart model or Airelei's experiments.
Speaker 2: This type of cheating appears irrational. It appears that there
Speaker 2: are fewer individuals that cheat irrationally than the many who
Speaker 2: utilize the personal fudge factor to cheat. However, this type
Speaker 2: of cheating is far from rare. One example can be
Speaker 2: taken from the world of online computer gaming. In these
Speaker 2: competitive online games, players compete against one another for points
Speaker 2: to compare themselves against all other players. For example, the
Speaker 2: popular gag Lead of Legends ranks players in seven different
Speaker 2: leagues based on ability gained by rating points. There are
Speaker 2: many paid services that will boost your ranking for a cost,
Speaker 2: allowing you to compete in a league with higher skill.
Speaker 2: The developer of the game continually watches for these boosted
Speaker 2: accounts and permanently bands players caught cheating in this way.
Speaker 2: The fact that this market exists indicates that many players
Speaker 2: will choose to pay money and risk severe penalties to
Speaker 2: claim they are better than they are. Well would drive
Speaker 2: someone to spend extra money to cheat in a game
Speaker 2: for which they are already paying. One theory is that
Speaker 2: we exaggerate our accomplishments to live better in the eyes
Speaker 2: of others. In this world of social media, claiming an
Speaker 2: unearned goal serves to increase our image for all those
Speaker 2: views and likes that we crave. However, it is difficult
Speaker 2: to argue that improving our image is the primary motivation.
Speaker 2: Most gaming competitors don't even use their real names in
Speaker 2: the competition. Likewise, most distance runners realize that despite the
Speaker 2: likes they may earn on social media, virtually no one
Speaker 2: remembers the times they post. Any short lived good feelings
Speaker 2: gained by bragging about one's imaginary accomplishments can't be worth
Speaker 2: the time and trouble it takes to cheat. Interestingly, deep
Speaker 2: down inside, the ones who cheat have to know the
Speaker 2: truth or maybe not. What if the driving force is
Speaker 2: not improving our image for others, but instead attempting to
Speaker 2: improve how we view ourselves, or more specifically, what if
Speaker 2: it is an attempt to confirm the image of ourselves
Speaker 2: that we imagine we should be. Someone who cuts the
Speaker 2: course to post a fast marathon time may not be
Speaker 2: attempting to impress others, but instead to confirm what they
Speaker 2: believe about themselves. They believe that they are excellent athletes
Speaker 2: deserving of an impressive time in a race, despite the
Speaker 2: obvious truth that they lack that capability. In these instances,
Speaker 2: one can argue that the financial cost is worth it
Speaker 2: to confirm one's imagined self image instead of coming to
Speaker 2: an honest appraisal about our actual abilities and accomplishments. It
Speaker 2: is easier to cut a course or pay someone to
Speaker 2: increase your rating than to acknowledge the fact that you
Speaker 2: may not be as good as you've imagined. The human
Speaker 2: trade that allows us to convince ourselves of this alternative
Speaker 2: reality worth cheating for. It is fascinating and troubling. The
Speaker 2: greatest danger may not be our capability to lie to
Speaker 2: one another, but our propensity to lie to ourselves. These
Speaker 2: findings reveal that most human beings have a far greater
Speaker 2: capacity to cheat than expected, and many even will spend
Speaker 2: significant resources to convince themselves that they are better than
Speaker 2: they are. The understanding of these traits is interesting considering
Speaker 2: the Christian worldview. First, unlike the smart theory, virtually all
Speaker 2: cheating is irrational. We cheat a little to gain something
Speaker 2: without violating our personal fudge factor, or expend resources to
Speaker 2: confirm a wrong view of ourselves. But inside we know
Speaker 2: that cheating and lying are wrong. Both motivations are inherently irrational,
Speaker 2: just as sin is inherently irrational. As Cornelius Planting explains,
Speaker 2: sinful human life is a caricature of proper human life.
Speaker 2: We no deep inside that the life of sin roubles
Speaker 2: against how God created us in his plan. Yet we
Speaker 2: are willing to cheat to preserve that caricature in our
Speaker 2: own minds, although we realize that the omissient God that
Speaker 2: we served knows the truth. Lastly, we can observe the
Speaker 2: degree that individuals are able to stretch the truth to
Speaker 2: confirm the image they have for themselves. This is a
Speaker 2: consequence to valuing self based on how we perceive our image.
Speaker 2: The view we have of ourselves cannot be trusted when
Speaker 2: we so easily can distort it to see ourselves as
Speaker 2: better than we are. Truthfully, we are valued only by
Speaker 2: the image of the one who has created us. We
Speaker 2: live by a fudge factor, seeing our value in our
Speaker 2: achievements as greater than they really are. God does the opposite.
Speaker 2: He sees us as we really are, sinful irrational beings,
Speaker 2: willing to cheat and lie to ourselves, exaggerating our accomplishments
Speaker 2: to others. Yet he views us as inherently valuable, based
Speaker 2: not on our flow, but is perfect one.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to another episode from the Christian
Speaker 1: Research Journal Reads podcast, which provides audio articles of Christian
Speaker 1: Research Journal articles. If you go to equip dot org,
Speaker 1: you will find a brand new article for the Christian
Speaker 1: Research Journal published weekly. In addition, please subscribe to our
Speaker 1: other podcasts. Wherever you find your favorite podcast, you will
Speaker 1: find the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, the Postmodern Realities podcast,
Speaker 1: which features interviews with Christian Research Journal authors, our flagship podcast,
Speaker 1: The Bible answer Man Broadcast, and the Hank Unplugged podcast,
Speaker 1: where CRI President Hank Canagraph takes you out of the
Speaker 1: studio and into his study to engage in in depth,
Speaker 1: free flowing, essential Christian conversations on critical issues with some
Speaker 1: of the most interesting and informative of people on the planet.
Speaker 1: At EQUIP dot org. You will also find a lot
Speaker 1: of resources to equip you, including many thousands of Christian
Speaker 1: research journal articles. That's e q u I P dot
Speaker 1: O r G