Annual Lecture Series (in-person)
Lunchtime Talks (in-person)
Conferences (in-person)
Online-Only Events
- This event has passed.
LTT: Paola Hernández-Chavez
January 21, 2020 @ 11:00 am - 12:30 pm EST
Cheating, Deceiving, and Corruption. Reshaping the Empirical Data
Paola Hernández-Chávez, Center Visiting Fellow
U. Juárez del Estado de Durango, Cognitive Sci. Research Ctr.
Abstract: Characterizations of corruption convolute in conceptualizing it as a violation of a social norm in order to obtain a particular benefit, as in political corruption, defined as the use of public power to obtain a private/personal benefit (Morris, 1991). This suggestively relates to the classic discourse on cheating detection, according to which human beings are capable of detecting cheaters because possessing that competence played a crucial role in the evolution of our species (Cosmides & Tooby 1992, Ermer et al. 2006). More recent literature on cheating detection describes it as the occurrence of a subject breaking a social rule and or receiving a benefit without paying the cost of it (Spence 2004, Ermer et al. 2006, Grèzes et al. 2004, Ganis et al. 2009, Litoiu 2015). From now on, it is essential to clarify that the benefit should be understood in a broader sense, i.e., as receiving any compensation, or atonement, in terms of resources, dividends, social recognition, advantages, etc. Another flip of the discussion is deceiving behaviors. In cognitive sciences, a classic definition of deception was offered by Zuckerman et al. (1981, p. 3). According to them, deceiving is “a deliberate act that is intended to foster in another person a belief or understanding which the deceiver considers false.” Henceforth, deception is generally defined as a generalized social behavior that takes place when someone attempts to persuade others to accept as truthful information that the deceiver knows is false with the purpose of obtaining a benefit or avoiding a punishment (Ganis et al., 2009, Grèzes et al., 2004). More often than not, persuading others implies breaking a rule or a social contract (Grèzes et al., 2004, Ermer et al., 2006).
Thereupon, we have the essential ingredients of the conventional formulation I will be using. Corruption lies in the inability to detect that there is a cheating/deceiving situation, as well as it rests on an explicit violation of a social norm. A very minimal definition of corruption can be portrayed as a situation where an agent or a group of agents obtain a personal benefit (in terms of attaining an asset, remuneration, expiation, or overcompensation), in addition to a conspicuous recognition that a cheating, a deception, or a transgression of a social rule taking place.
This work starts explaining why there is not yet an encompassing account of the phenomenon of corruption. The purpose is to redress that trend elaborating on the subtle emotional components involved in detecting cheating and deceiving behaviors. I will stress out how the level of emotional commitment boosters or detaches the corruption detection since it also boosters or detaches cheating detection.
Section 1 presents the state of the art on cheating and deceiving literature. Additionally, some distinctions are elaborated to differentiate between producing and identifying cheating and deception. Section 2 spells out the central hypothesis, i.e., that identifying deception changes dramatically depending on the level of emotional proximity to the case. For example, when there is a detriment to the first person, the cheating/deception situation will be easier to identify. This contrasts with cases where there is a detriment to an impersonal subject, as an institution, or to a third person. A significant difference will be noticed when the situation entails a benefit to the first person. To test my hypothesis, I will offer a cognitive-behavioral experiment. Five contrasting scenarios involving different levels of emotional proximity during cheating/deceiving situations are analyzed. This last will be presented in section III. Cases range from those where the aggravated subject is: i) an undefined entity (as an institution), ii) a third person (perhaps not directly but somehow of a familiar reference), iii) yourself. I describe the instructions, the shaping of the presented sentences, the content of the stimuli, and further information in that section. Section IV deploys the results obtained for each of the 5 categories of stimuli. A summary of the results will be presented in Section V. A compilation of whither cheating-deceiving is offered in Section VI as
provisional conclusions. The future directions of the study are sketched in section VII, profiling our experiment towards an fMRI protocol.
The central thesis is that the level of emotional proximity bolsters or suppresses the capability for detecting cheating/deception situations, and thus the capacity for detecting corruption.
Details
- Date:
- January 21, 2020
- Time:
-
11:00 am - 12:30 pm EST
- Event Category:
- Lunchtime Talks
Venue
- 1117 Cathedral of Learning
-
4200 Fifth Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 United States