The researchers also examined whether any brain regions showed increased activation in the honest (compared to dishonest) participants, but found no such areas. They interpret this to mean that honesty may be a human ‘baseline’ – our brains might find it more effortful to be dishonest than honest.
This interpretation is rather optimistic about human nature, as it implies that we are hardwired to be honest, and that even those who consistently act dishonestly do not find it easy to do so. However, we must remember that failing to find a difference is not the same as proving that there is no difference. Honesty-related brain activity may be too subtle for such techniques to pick up.
In this study, each of the participants tended to be either honest or dishonest. Surprisingly, although we often think of honesty as a general personality trait, the researchers found no differences, on personality measures, between participants who broke promises and those who kept them.
Does this mean honesty is simply not part of one’s personality? Or perhaps we will never be able to capture honesty with a test? After all, being honest or dishonest involves a set of cognitive and social factors which may prove too complex to pin down.
The study provides an interesting insight into how deception can be investigated experimentally. Lately, research into the brain correlates of deception has been heating up. Most recent studies have investigated deception in the context of lie-detection, and they found increased brain activity in a number of regions, including the anterior cingulate cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
However, such findings should be treated with caution, because the participants of most of these studies were instructed to tell a falsehood without having a choice about whether or not to do so. In the Baumgartner et al study, the researchers observed people doing what came naturally to them in a social interaction – and for about half, the experiment was enough to elicit deceptive behavior.
These findings, therefore, bear more relevance to real-life deception than those of most previous studies. They also show that deception can be successfully examined as a social act rather than in the context of lie-detection. This makes it possible to relate the findings to the wider spectrum of social behavior in which trust, cooperation and (unfortunately) deception are intimately linked.
The study opens up a host of questions for future research. For example, is dishonesty in economic decision-making the same as dishonesty in other situations, such as social, romantic or political interactions? Are dishonest people equally dishonest in different situations? And do similar brain mechanisms underlie all types of dishonest behavior?
So next time you say "I will call you" take a moment and ask yourself if you really mean it. You may be surprised to realize that you already know whether you do... or do not. This intention, we now know, is evident in your brain activity, so if you intend to break a promise, you might want to avoid making it in an MRI scanner.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentAre we in the same Journal Club? We just discussed this article a few days ago! ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing though: it was mentioned above, but in my opinion not very clearly. If A trusts B and gives him one "money unit", B receives TEN. B then either keeps 10, or splits the money, A and B then both receive 5.
The text above makes it seem as if 1 MU will be 5, not 10, which could be split in two.
I know it's just one little detail, but imho this does add up a little to the moral dillema the trustee is facing.
Monitoring brain activity to determine intention might reveal individual pathological malevolence and self-interest, but does not assess the ability of the promise-giver to fulfill the promise. In addition, interactions with large organizations involve direct exchanges with minions who may have the best intentions, but whose organization has no intention of sacrificing its own self-interest in order to fulfill a promise made. I wouldn’t get too excited about this unless you’re in personnel or law enforcement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe numbers are in fact correct here. In the study, A gets 2 MUs that are then increased by a factor of FIVE, which makes 10MUs. So if we take e.g. 1 dollar and increase this by a factor of 5, we get 5 dollar. Greetings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the paper: A receives an endowment of 2 [TWO] money units (MUs) at the beginning of each trial (&) If A trusts B and sends his endowment (case 1), the experimenter increases the amount sent by a factor of five [FIVE], so that B receives 10 MUs.
Here's another question: can a brain scan be fooled, like a polygraph can?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder what will be the scan pattern of war criminals like Bush, Blair and many more when they were lying outright while proposing to attack Iraq and other nations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolley Molley! Keep this scanner away from Congress 'cause it will blow up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
what about the other circumstances,due to which One may not be able to keep a Promise?Can that also be predicted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes! them liars are detectable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseven if for now one must have the intuition or the second-sight, the day will come when we all will be able to know and hate them by various means.