Ambiguity makes us lie

A new study found that the degree of ambiguity of the situation is one way that allows us to justify our actions while maintaining a moral self-image

In order to maintain the feeling that we are moral people, we tend to lie only to the extent that we can justify such behavior. A new study found that the degree of ambiguity of the situation is one way that allows us to justify our actions while maintaining a moral self-image. Findings from two experiments show that people tend to lie in order to benefit themselves only when the situation is obscure enough to provide them with moral cover.

The research was carried out by researchers Andrea Peterello, Margarita Leib, Tom Gordon-Hacker and Shaul Shloy from the Department of Psychology at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and was published in the Psychological Science journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

"Whether in corporate scandals or everyday moral transgressions, many times people break ethical laws in order to serve their own interests. The results of the experiments show that there is a greater chance that these moral transgressions will occur in situations where the ethical boundaries are blurred," the researchers write. "In murky situations, the motivation to serve self-interest directs our attention towards tempting information, thus shaping the lies we tell," says Dr. Peterlow.

The researchers developed a research paradigm that they called "the dim cube". The subjects in the experiment were asked to look at a computer screen showing the results of six dice rolls. The subjects were asked to report the result of the throw that appeared closest to the target that appeared on the screen before the dice appeared. In addition, using special equipment, the researchers followed the subjects' eye movements.

In one condition, subjects were told that they would be paid according to the value they reported, so reporting a score of "6" allowed them to earn a greater amount of money than reporting a score of "5." The subjects could maximize their payment in the task by reporting "6" in each of the steps in the task, but in such a situation their lie would be obvious and difficult to justify. The researchers hypothesized that subjects would be tempted to lie only when they could justify the 'errors' in their favor by reporting that they saw the second closest value to the target.

In the second condition, subjects were told that they would be paid according to their accuracy on the task. Errors in this condition can only harm the subjects' potential payoff, so the researchers hypothesized that the second closest value to the target would not affect the subjects' reports. This condition allowed the researchers to rule out other factors that could cause people to misreport the outcome of the dice roll.

In total, the subjects reported the correct value in approximately 84% of the steps in the condition in which they received payment based on reporting and in approximately 90% of the steps in the condition in which they received payment based on accuracy. The important result was the finding that the mistakes made by the subjects in the condition in which they were paid according to the report indicated a pattern of 'self-interested errors': subjects reported the second value closer to the target when the value was tempting (that is, higher than the value they were supposed to report) than when it was not tempting (lower than the value they were supposed to report).

The eye-tracking results showed that when the values ​​of the second cube closest to the target were tempting, they attracted more attention in the condition where the subjects were paid for the report. That is, people looked longer at tempting values ​​and less time at the value closest to the target.

In a second experiment, the researchers changed the location of the target to be closer or less to a certain cube. In this way, in some cases the answer to which of the cubes is closer to the target was very unambiguous, but in other cases, very ambiguous. The researchers examined whether ambiguity would cause subjects to make a greater number of mistakes, but mainly those that would serve their own self-interest.

Again, the results showed that the lure of a higher value of the second-closest cube to the target affected subjects' answers when they were paid for the value they reported, but not when they were paid for their accuracy.

Moreover, the results showed that ambiguity played an additional role and moderated the subjects' behavior. Subjects reported the value of the second cube closest to the target especially when the target appeared in a dim location. As expected, when the subjects were paid according to the accuracy of the task, this behavior was not seen.

"These results indicate that, especially in situations where the ambiguity is high, people can interpret the information in their hands in a way that will serve their self-interest. People who wish to increase ethical behavior in their daily lives or in the organization they work in need to reduce ambiguity and make situations clear. Transparency is a necessary condition for ethical behavior" says Prof. Shloy.

The research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation.

• More of the topic in Hayadan:
• Altruism - genetics and chemistry of altruism
  The hidden factor