Cover Image: September 2012 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

MIND Reviews: The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty














Share on Tumblr

MIND Reviews: The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty, Dan Ariely

Image: HarperCollins

  • 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 »

The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone—Especially Ourselves
Dan Ariely
HarperCollins, 2012 ($26.99)

Liars: they populate our news feeds, perform evil deeds on our favorite television shows and infuse drama into our daily lives. The psychological origins of both Bernard Madoff–scale Ponzi schemes and the mundane dishonesties most of us partake in—filching office pens, padding expense reports or secretly toting a counterfeit designer purse—are the subject of Ariely's The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty.

Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics, suggests that a moral sweet spot guides our decisions, so that we “benefit from dishonesty without destroying our own self-image.” We dial up our lies when we perceive them as benefiting a friend (that's altruism!) and tend to exaggerate more liberally when we're sporting fake designer sunglasses (hey, we're already fudging our fashion, why not push a few more boundaries?). Rather than applying a cost-benefit analysis—will I get away with it?—Ariely argues that we decide whether to behave truthfully by considering complex internal and environmental influences.

Many of the factors he cites are social. Social contagion may facilitate deceit: just as a virus spreads by proximity to an infectious person, Ariely argues, dishonesty in one's social group can be catching. Although skeptics have challenged theories of social contagion, he cites real-life examples in politics, finance and his own research on cheating, which shows that dishonesty can become the norm when a group practices it openly. Creativity, too, is linked to dishonesty—not because creative people are more likely to be dishonest but because they are probably better at convincing themselves of their own lies.

So what holds us in check? “Moral prophylactics” such as the presence of Bibles and locks are associated with honesty, probably by acting as reminders of a social contract. Similarly, even suggested surveillance, such as decorating a communal coffee kitty with a pair of eyes, can promote honesty. Seeing a person outside one's social circle breaking the rules also seems to discourage bad behavior—most likely, Ariely posits, because we want to distance ourselves from people we perceive as “other.”

It is slightly dissatisfying that Ariely does not consider the potential benefits of dishonesty beyond those of white lies, perhaps overlooking other reasons why we fudge the truth. Second, he touches on the neurological underpinnings of only pathological liars, leaving the rest of us with little biological insight into our transgressions. Yet (Honest) Truth contains a wealth of fascinating findings about what makes us garden-variety fibbers do what we do and why certain moral reminders may make us think twice.


Buy This Issue
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

3 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. frankblank 05:27 PM 9/28/12

    The way to discover the truth about lying is to do a prolonged study of the thing in Willard Romney's head.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. chuck_rossier 07:16 AM 10/2/12

    This seems to omit instinctive lying for self preservation.
    This type of dishonesty doesn't involve violating moral or criminal values. It is built into our genetic code to preserve the lives of ourselves, our family, and others we feel responsible for. We don't consciously do it and we don't rationalize it in advance. An ironic example is the driver who swerves off the road into a tree to avoid hitting and killing a child. The driver may die, but the instinctive reflex blinds the driver his/her own danger.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. chrissponias 03:27 AM 1/13/13

    The real reason why we are dishonest is the existence of a wild side in our conscience that didn't evolve like our human side. This is a new scientific discovery that explains all mysteries about the human behavior. We have many abnormal tendencies that belong to our wild nature, and this is why we like what is bad.

    We like to believe that we’ll have advantages when we’ll be dishonest because we think that by doing what is bad we can faster reach our goals. We are excellent actors. We always hide our real feelings and thoughts. We believe that we are smart when we are dishonest and we manage to hide our dishonesty because we are unable to be sincere. We are afraid to be sincere and completely honest because our conscience is under-developed and we don’t know the importance of goodness.


    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

Follow Us:

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American MIND

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Email this Article

MIND Reviews: The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty: Scientific American Mind

X
Scientific American Mind

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X