Man, the immoral
Image: iStock/PeskyMonkey
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
What do Barry Bonds, Bernie Madoff, and James Murdoch have in common? They were all, in their respective areas, in it to win it – whatever the cost. Their appetite for success apparently disabled the moral compass that would have otherwise kept their dishonesty, greed, and hubris in check.
The magnitude of these highly publicized ethical infractions may lead one to wonder whether folks like Barry, Bernie, and Jimmy were absent the day their kindergarten teachers talked about lying, cheating, and stealing. Recent research, however, suggests that ethical violations are somewhat predictable, that in fact there are specific circumstances, contexts, and individual characteristics that beckon us away from the moral high road.
One of the most notable risk factors for ethical laxity is one that all of the above offenders share: Being a man. A number of studies demonstrate that men have lower moral standards than women, at least in competitive contexts. For example, men are more likely than women to minimize the consequences of moral misconduct, to adopt ethically questionable tactics in strategic endeavors, and to engage in greater deceit. This pattern is particularly pronounced in arenas in which success has (at least historically) been viewed as a sign of male vigor and competence, and where loss signifies weakness, impotence, or cowardice (e.g., a business negotiation or a chess match). When men must use strategy or cunning to prove or defend their masculinity, they are willing to compromise moral standards to assert dominance.
Shall we blame it on testosterone, the Y chromosome, or other genetic differences? The current evidence doesn't point in that direction. Instead, a recent series of studies by Laura Kray and Michael Haselhuhn suggests that the root of this pattern may be more socio-cultural in nature, as men - at least in American culture - seem motivated to protect and defend their masculinity. These scientists suggest that losing a "battle," particularly in contexts that are highly competitive and historically male oriented, presents a threat to masculine competency. Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive. So a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. To ensure victory, men will sacrifice moral standards if doing so means winning.
To test this theory, Kray and Haselhuhn conducted several experiments in which they examined not only the kinds of moral decisions made by men and women, but also the personal and situational factors that influenced those decisions. In one study, participants evaluated an ethical scenario in which an elderly couple was selling their home of 40 years with the expectation that the buyer would maintain their cherished abode. The buyer, however, intended to raze the structure and build a new home on the property. Participants had to indicate whether the buyer was morally obligated to reveal the conflicting intentions. Participants also completed a separate questionnaire that assessed the extent to which they perceived negotiating as a masculine endeavor.
Consistent with other findings, men in this investigation were more tolerant of withholding information from the seller. Moreover, this leniency was more prevalent for men who perceived negotiating as a masculine endeavor. Thus men found it more acceptable to deceive if they believed that successful negotiating was an indicator of male prowess.
In two follow up studies, participants considered different viewpoints as they made moral decisions. In one scenario, participants were to consider the moral necessity of revealing a buyer's intentions (which were in conflict with the seller's) in a real estate deal. The twist is that they were asked to do so from the perspective of either the buyer's agent or the seller's agent. In another scenario, participants were to judge whether it was ethical to deceive a potential buyer by fabricating other offers. Here, participants were to imagine that they themselves had lied or that another person had lied, and they were to evaluate the moral appropriateness of the lie.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
50 Comments
Add CommentI am glad that you put that last paragraph in there; I was beginning to think that you had been watching too many soaps on TV. Most of these, thought of to be, immoral acts that you described sound like a lot of them could be instinct, after all, we are mammals in an animal world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout the people who was selling their home of 40 years... when you bring emotionalism onto the scene like that when you are negotiating with a predator, the predator automatically see you as making yourself a victim and they will help you all they can...that's just automatic, or instinct, or survival of the fittest; it's part of human nature - or male nature, and in certain circumstances - female nature too.
My first thought was that this had to be written by a woman, and sure enough, it was. An article like this, or even a friendly discussion usually brings out your "sexual bias", unless one is neither male or female. I guess the closest we can get to that is an eunuch or lesbian, but they have their own sets of issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, us guys are worthless louts, no doubt about it. However, I sense a weakness in the writers argument with the line "...socio-cultural in nature, as men - at least in American culture...", implying that it's just us lousy guys in the US that have "the problem". Seems to me other cultures have similar traits. Some recent headlines from Italy (Bunga Bunga) and France, even some from China, illustrate the point.
I submit that it has to do with competitiveness, type A personalities, exposure long term highly competitive environments -call it temptation - with high rewards (pro sports and politics come to mind), and weather you use a urinal on the wall or the floor.
Another factor is luck in early childhood learning experiences. When my son was about 10, he was with several friends when one was caught shoplifting at Kmart. The cops quickly determined that the other kids did not know anything about his misdeeds or intentions, but the savvy cops scared the crap out of my son (somewhat intentionally, I believe). It made a long lasting, profound impression in exactly the right time and way. To this day, he will not take anything that doesn't belong to him.
I have to believe this is a lot more about women not being part of the "club" in corporate America. Give them time, they'll catch up and be able to justify unethical behavior (whatever that means) as easily as the guys. I'd like to think a women president would be less likely to rush to war (actually a president who was a mother), but I suspect the realities of that job just as the realities of corporate america where competition is king would outweigh genetics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd of course the article was written by a woman, surprise, surprise.
I only have my personal experience to go by, but most of the scoundrels I've met in my life were women.
But the bumbling testosterone inflated male is so easily manipulated by the devious woman! Besides, what fool listens to what a [select gender here] says? Watch what they do!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study would have been more interesting if the potentially deceived party was portrayed as being the opposite sex of the responding study subject...
What was the composition of the study groups? The typical "upper middle class white college student"? Or were matched groups men and women from various age groups, backgrounds, education, career, etc. included? Could personal experience (or observation) of negotiations where one side wasn't fully "ethical" be a factor? If this is cultural, were groups with potentially different cultures studied?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting that all the hypothetical explanations were of male behavior, and none of female behavior.
Very tendentious misanthropistic article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen and Women are atleast equally deseptive....Maybe, in different ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDivorce, for example,is where women lie a lot, as already noted.
Chris Rock points out, in a stand up routine, that...womens legs ain't really that long(high heels),their hair ain't really that color, their face ain't really that smooth, their boobs sag more than it looks like.
When it comes to war....yes,it's true that few women are in the position to declare war but when they have been in those positions they seem to be as gung ho as the men.....Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and Margaret Thatcher was priminister during the Falkland war and was named ,as a defendent, in a law suit ,along with 3 other priministers and 4 presidents, in the Irag war.
I notice a trend towards more and more Mickey Mouse articles and blog entries in SciAm. Often entertaining but hardly the stuff of which scientific reporting is made. Am I the only one to think so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think these findings say more about Americans (and America-leaning Western nations) than they do about men. Our culture has set up this ultra-aggressive, "win-at-all-costs" image as the masculine ideal, so it's no surprise that so much of our news is dominated by stories of men who tried to live up to (or down to) this model and took it too far. Maybe we should borrow a page from the Japanese, who are just as competitive internationally (and often more successful), but who value HONOR above all else in their ideal of manliness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Archimedes - The swing towards a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality has little to nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with media sensationalism. Acknowledging that defendants might yet be acquitted doesn't get ratings. Parading a 'monster' before a horde of angry villagers does. Again, it's the Western 'gotta-win' mentality at work - the network with the highest ratings is the winner.
Interesting how the instinctual male response to the article is to dismiss it as either crap or feminist bias. And yet, none can dispute the actual findings. As a man, even before this article came out, I had realized that it was to my advantage to hire female real estate agents rather than male. If only there were just more female car salespersons!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting how the instinctual male response to the article is to dismiss it as either crap or feminist bias. And yet, none can dispute the actual findings. As a man, even before this article came out, I had realized that it was to my advantage to hire female real estate agents rather than male. If only there were just more female car salespersons!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfchistiny....really, men in your life have been more dishonest than women as a whole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit I'm a man, but I can also honestly say that, in my 50yrs of living, Women have been every bit as dishonest as men.
I am not giving men a break here....it's just that, in my expirence, moral character has been about....equal.
And have you noticed what a 'fair and balanced' justice you get with female judges? My nephew divorced his wife because she was a trollop and allowed her boyfriends to abused my nephew and her children. When the psych evaluation came to the female judge, it showed that my nephew could had been father of the year and his wife, a demon right out of hell and the judge still gave custody to the mother. The judge said that a child needs its mother more than it does its father. Now, that is female justice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA single study can't cover every scenario. Comparing moral responses between heterosexuals and LGBTs or between men and women in sterotypically 'female' areas would have to be the subject of future research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you're going to paint all female judges as biased feminists because of the actions of one? They have a word for people who do things like that - it's bigot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy parents divorced when I was a child and a female judge awarded custody of my brother and myself to my father, even thoug my mother wasn't anywhere near being "a demon right out of hell". She just had no steady job, no permanent home & had already tried to abduct us twice. And the fact that she was a Christian Scientist & the judge was Roman Catholic might have played into it. And this all happened back in 1979, when the standard practice was still to give custody to the mother almost automatically.
I agree that women are equally likely to discard their moral convictions when faced with an issue that might put into question their perceived value as women. I would also think that many other factors come into play, such as upbringing, personal economics, and the intensity of the motivation. None of that is particularly interesting to me. What is interesting is the rapid-fire defensiveness of the men in the comments section. Relax, guys. We women survived all of Freud's conclusions about our gender. You can survive this one silly article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWritten by a woman who obviously never heard of Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy, Lucrezia Borgia, Mary Ann Cotton, Belle Gunnes and Elizabeth Bathory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfchristiny:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Interesting how the instinctual male response to the article is to dismiss it as either crap or feminist bias"
Interesting how your I hope instinctual because not tainted by objectivity comment is at least as foreseeably cliché as anything here you accuse of bias.
First off, I have to admit to being male, still, I wonder WHY the research shows males are more deceitful than women in economic matters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApart from testosterone etc. I could surmise sex and economic responsibility for the family?
Women are attracted to powerful and rich men, so, instead of huge peacock feathers to attract the females, we do tend to try to get rich and powerful, be it by deceit, just as women (often deceitfully) try to look young and attractive. That was the sex-bit.
The other part, though related, is that it is (still?) most common, that the male is the main breadwinner, and he knows that if he loses that status, he may well lose the whole show.
In Denmark, where I live, statistics show clearly, that if a man loses his job, his risk of a divorce gets much higher, while if the woman loses her job (women in Dk are nearly as often working as men), it doesn't affect the marriage, even with a minor tendency of making the marriage last.
Who knows whether the social pressures on men to "make good" are stronger than om women, and whether that might be (at least part of) the reason why we are more prone to be dishonest moneywise?
We are all in this world together. For whatever bad behavior (i.e. unethical behavior) that one gender tends to commit more often than the opposite gender, the opposite gender REWARDS that unethical behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed! In fact I'd go so far as to say that the main driver behind deceptive behavior is the same for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. - the invdividual gets some sort of advantage from it (as long as s/he doesn't get caught, anyways). Steroids, shady business deals, high heels, boob jobs... they're all just examples of Social Darwinism in action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how the anti-science crowd immediately attacks this as a woman-generated anti-male tirade. If you look at the referenced study, two-thirds of the authors are male, which common for studies in this field. Also, all of the published studies are peer reviewed, again, mostly by men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is any consolation to the bruised male egos, this article only discusses one cause of increased dishonesty. Another study I read several years ago indicated that female dishonesty increased in order to preserve a valued relationship. So there may be many factors affecting this sort of behavior.
All that aside, I am inclined to disagree with the interpretation that the cause the these results is western culture. Comparing western versus eastern history or current events, I do not see any major difference in the inclination of politically dominant males to engage in dishonest behavior.
From the introduction of the article :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Shall we blame it on ............................... genetic differences? The current evidence doesn't point in that direction."
Is there anything in this study that casts any light on whether these differences may be innate (or genetic) or not?
Instead we get the PC line rammed down our throats at the very beginning that there are no innate differences.
Who's being unscientific round here?
Ah SciAm finally has there Affirmative Action in full gear. What a pathetic article just to allow a "girl" to have an article in a Science mag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs most of the comments have already pointed out this is nothing more ten a hack job. Of course from a women's point of view men seem less moral... not like so many women who "sleep" their way into a job and/or career! So Cindi how much did you put out to get here? That maybe crude on my part, but my point is this: I can stereotype as good as any women can!
A nicely balanced article in my opinion, very well written, results put into context, clear boundaries put on the conclusions, avoids the use of generalizing or polarizing language, i.e., enjoyable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre females not rewarding males for their behavior (and vice versa)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr do you actually believe that females (males) are unaware of the transgressions of the males (females) they marry? If a woman is "married to the mob," does she really believe she is married to a plumber [see Gotti family]? I doubt it.
The question is: were all the studies mentioned in the article done by women?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's worth remembering that males are in a lot more precarious genetic position than females from a biological point of view. Genetic evidence suggest that a limited proportion of human males have participated in producing the next generation. I'm not sure what the current numbers on this are but I believe it's around like 40% genetic dead ducks. In chimps the figure is higher. When females choose males on status, low status means no sex which means genetic death. The biological need to protect male status is imperative. So masculine status is worth taking serious risks for, and this will include breaking ethical conventions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor females the equation is less severe. Ultimately, someone will mate with them. The pressure on females is to get the best mate in a situation of choice. It affects their genetic viability but not as intensely.
Of course, we now live in quasi-monogamous societies where more-or-less everyone can get a partner so the actual selection pressure is reduced. But just as the overweight person who gets the impetus to eat the large serve of fries by his starving ancestors selective pressures, males retain the tendency to act like they are still living in a winner-takes-all Pleistocene sexual landscape.
another dalt wisney production
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHilarious. Bravo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's the data? This article would be more compelling if it cited study data, or provided it as an addendum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If males feel their masculinity may be at stake, they are more likely to cut ethical corners."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn humanosophic view, this in not a pure male reaction but a general human reaction.
When we look at the evolutionary development of humans, human nature can be seen as a three-stage rocket.
The first stage origins from our common history of all life forms: the me-myself-and-I-bias. This basic element of our nature may still pop up in situations of acute threat or panic.
The second stage is the group orientation: a relic of our ape origin that we have in common with other group animals such as chimpanzees. Harmonious groups are flourishing better then groups with permanent mutual trouble.
The third stage in human nature is a relic of our four million years of prehistory. For our ancestors, Australopithic and Early Human small foraging groups who lived in precarious and dangerous environments, intern harmony was of great importance for survival. It is this long period of human group harmony that has made our species extremely social.
In situations of overpopulation and therefore increased competition between different groups, aggression can play a role again. Among chimpanzees this happened already two million years ago; but for our ancestors this did not happen until about 10.000 years ago (and the last 5.000 years to an increased degree). This recent development pushed mankind 's behavior back towards the more primitive stages of human nature, leading to wars etc. But this development is too recent to fundamentally change the effects of the millions of years of harmony that preceded it. The craving for harmony, the feeling that our individual happiness depends on group harmony, remains a basic part of human nature and will be dominant whenever the circumstances allow it.
For more information on the humanosophic view, see www.humanosophy.org
ROFL HAHA. The comments are hilarious. The number of people pointing out the article was written by a female is astounding. I guess the article does come off biased by not even attempting to do a study attacking the female moral compass (but I guess mentioning it would suffice, right? LOL).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk I'm going to do the unthinkable and take the comments section from sexist to racist in nature:
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
If you want a measure of moral detail - look at the American Prison system stats. Men compose 10 times the incarcerated population over women! And blacks compose 5.5 times more of the prison population than whites. To me it is indusputable, men are less moral than women.
What's this mean to me? That Jimb2's comments above appear to be the most likely explanation of what's happening. Next I note that blacks typically make less than whites, so to me the direction of your moral compass is most likely to be guided by the need for sex and financial stability. The lower your odds of getting those two things the more likely you are to break a moral or legal code (compulsive liars and cheaters aside, since they have mental illnesses and do not represent a pop avg - Madoff, etc.). Next I note that we have a very high incarceration rate in America, so Western ideals are likely to pose part of the incarceration issue (not gonna try to interpolate to moral issues). So we either like to make money of incarcerations, we have more money to incarcerate with or we are less moral. Hard to say but I bet a composite study of other nations prison stats would shed some light.
I don't know why Man thinks that they are moral??? see some exclusive features that shows how "moral" they are !!!! just see this http://m3mi.com/3306
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently, there are no female sports or corporate equivalent to Bonds or Madoff respectively. It is easy to display high profile incidents. I've met enough devious women in my lifetime to make me realize that deficient morals are gender independent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry watching "Snapped", a television show that airs on Sunday nights on the Oxygen channel. The episodes depicts actual cases of women killing their husbands, lovers, other women, etc. How 'bout a little antifreeze and Coke dear?
Going off on a more serious tangent, why are over 99% of serial killers male? Why do so many more men than women sexually abuse children of both genders? If we had more courage to explore such issues, instead of ignoring them or reacting defensively, all of society would benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all of the women you list we can list a thousand men that were worse. Limit your complaints to actual scientific concerns and not bigoted cherry picking. This article basically states that when a situation threatens a person's self identity, they panic and engage in a fear response by discarding their morals and acting like animals. The subjects were both male and female but the scenario, as pointed out in the article, was one where males are more likely to feel threatened than women are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is only one small study and is in no way conclusive. I personally have found very few people to be essentially moral. Most immoral people are the ones making the most noise about how moral they are.
If the sellers don't want the house destroyed they need to write that into the contract. Then it doesn't matter what the buyer wants as long as the punishment for violation is clearly spelled out and the buyer signs it and it is notarized.
"bigoted cherry picking"??????? Isn't it amazing how people without facts resort to name calling. I accept your challenge. First, let's see you defend any of the 9 women I listed as being on the moral high ground. Then, let's see your list of 9 thousand men that are morally corrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor years we subscribed to Scientific American, but my wife canceled the subscription because SA changed from a publisher of science to a socialist agenda propaganda outlet. The agenda at SA obviously includes a very misandrist (hate) agenda too. Shame on you bigots. This is not science, it is hate propaganda. It makes us glad we are no longer paying for this kind of cow manure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimple, women don't get caught whereas men do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/internet-memes-women.jpg">women</a>.
The author sure does have issues with men. Sorry daddy didn't hold you enough or things didn't work out with your ex husband or whatever your problems are. Allow me to play devil's advocate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's pretend (I personally don't believe it) that what the author says is true. Well, let's see. It is certainly true that women gladly take credit for raising admirable men (e.g. see London Olympics "Thank you, Mum" campaign". Men are surrounded (smothered and curtailed in my opinion) by women in their youth....Mom, female-dominated early childhood educators, female babysitters, etc..
So, if women are going to take credit for their LEADERSHIP creating admirable men isn't it only logical they should do so for scoundrels. After all, isn't ACCOUNTABILITY something a true adult accepts.
Therefore, the author (a misandrist) has unkowingly accomplished the opposite of what she intended. Instead of making men look bad; she has made women look bad. Because: 1) Women dominate (smother) the lives of young boys. 2) Women gladly take credit for the influence of their LEADERSHIP on producing admirable men. 3) Women, as adults, surely accept ACCOUNTABILITY and, therefore, also accept responsibility for their LEADERSHIP producing scoundrels. 4) So, since most males (and females for that matter) who are scoundrels had primary LEADERSHIP from women in their formative years, this article does nothing besides bringing women's leadership abilities into question.
A more fitting title, "Are women inferior leaders?"
A democratic society should allow for outliers however immoral. It is human expressions/freedom of speech. The key is to have the check and balance to catch immoral behaviors before it is too late..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA democratic society should allow for outliers however immoral. This is freedom of expression. The key to have the check and balance to catch immoral acts before it is too late..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as "the rush to go to war," I'd say Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, and Cleopatra, to name but a few, prove that theory ludicrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, as the Japanese aren't sexist, jingoist or racist in any way(repression of women in business and male oriented jobs; rant obstruction and discrimination of "Gaijin," including Filipino and Korean workers; a history of militaristic domination of others which needed forcible occupation to break). Learn to choose a better example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone in these "tests" were aware that the situations were pretend. How ethical is it of our authors to ignore that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not. These articles are also becoming increasingly politically correct, as the Scientific community, more and more finds ways to ostracize those who question the most popular of its opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know about the cited studies, but the study explicitly described is fatally flawed. It depends on self-reporting of hypothetical ethical decisions. There are two models to explain the data: (1) Men act less ethically than women in this scenario, or (2) Men are more honest than women in reporting how they would behave. The results do not distinguish between these models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the huge numbers of women who emotionally blackmail men who don't do what they want? I keep hearing about men who are having children they don't want, just to keep the woman from leaving them. The odd occasion a man shows some backbone and says no, the woman ends up leaving him! What sort of people only want a partner for their sperm? This is shallow and depraved behaviour of the lowest order. This didn't happen years ago, because women were suppressed, but now that women can earn enough money to not need men to support them, they can (and do) call the shots in relationships. I am sure the reason that traditionally men in business showed less ethical behaviour was do to conditioning - traditionally, it was "boys will be boys", but girls were seriously chastised for doing unconscionable things during their childhood. Now we have had 30 years of more equitable child-rearing, this is why we are seeing women behave without morals, at least in relationships. PEOPLE are unethical – it’s human nature unless a person is heavily socialised throughout their childhood to behave differently. If all children are brought up the way girls used to be brought up (strictly and with great censure for misdemeanours), future generations’ behaviours will be much improved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this