Article published by José Alberto León Alonso in El Día on 03/13/16.
"There is one way to know if a man is honest: to ask him. If he says yes, he is a scoundrel," said Groucho Marx. Gary Becker, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics for extending microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviors such as the decision to commit a crime or lie, concluded in his analyzes that a person will commit a crime if the benefit of his decision is greater than its potential cost multiplied by the probability of being discovered. However, Dan Ariely, professor of behavioral economic psychology, showed that an additional nuance had to be introduced. Ariely observed in surprise how the subjects of his behavioral experiments experienced increasing discomfort when the economic reward obtained by deception reached certain limits and that, at a certain point, if the economic reward of deception increased, they even behaved more honestly.
Finally, he came to the conclusion that, although human beings tend to lie as soon as we have the opportunity and the possibility of not being caught, we have a threshold of tolerance regarding the acceptance of lies. Our sense of morality is associated with the degree of deception with which we are comfortable. In essence, we deceive to the level that allows us to preserve our image as reasonably honest individuals. As Oscar Wilde said, “Morality, like art, means drawing a line somewhere.” The question is where that line is.
When it comes to cheating, we behave practically the same as when we follow a diet. As soon as we begin to violate our guidelines (in diet or in our morals), we are more susceptible to breaking them again and, from then on, there is a great chance of succumbing to the temptation to misbehave again. Deception is infectious. The “broken windows theory” is a criminology theory that maintains that keeping urban environments in good condition can lead to a decrease in vandalism and reduced crime rates. In a 1982 article by Wilson and Kelling titled Broken Windows, the authors said: "Consider a building with one broken window. If the window is not repaired, vandals will tend to break a few more. Eventually, they may even break into the building; and, if it is abandoned, they may occupy it and set a fire inside." If a broken window appears in a building, and it is not fixed soon, the rest of the windows immediately end up being destroyed by vandals. Because? Because it's fun to break glass, of course. But, above all, because the broken window sends a message: there is no one here to take care of this. So, a good strategy to prevent vandalism is to fix problems when they are still small. Our city councils are well aware of this theory. When graffiti appears on a wall, if it is not erased soon, the entire wall and those of the nearby houses appear covered in graffiti. New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani adopted this policy since his election in 1993, under the "zero tolerance" and "quality of life" programs. Those who traveled for free on the subway, those who urinated and littered public roads, and "windshield cleaners" who demanded payment for cleaning car windows were persecuted, and the crime rate, both major and minor, fell significantly, and continued to decline for the next 10 years.
In short, according to Ariely, we should not consider that an individual act of dishonesty is something trivial. We tend to forgive a person's first offense with the excuse that everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance, but cheating and dishonesty tend to increase exponentially after the first unpunished offense. The first dishonest act is the one that must be avoided or, once carried out, punished to prevent the example from spreading. This theory has interesting effects on the widespread belief that juvenile delinquents should receive benign treatment from the justice system to favor their reintegration. On the contrary, with this benign treatment towards the first offense, future behavior will be less honest and the example of successful dishonest behavior will spread among other young people. It also dismantles part of our penal code that exempts those without criminal records from serving prison sentences of less than two years.
What can be done to reduce dishonest behavior? Ethics classes, codes of good conduct, and transparency policies do not seem to have much of an effect on their reduction. No learning morality in school. What you have to do is not excuse, overlook, or forgive any crime, otherwise dishonesty will spread like wildfire. This is especially important for those in the foreground: politicians, public officials, celebrities or presidents of large companies. If the fraudster is a member of our social group, we identify with him and it seems to us that cheating is more acceptable. And even more so if the cheater is an authority figure in our group, someone respected. The conclusion is very clear: a heavy hand to reduce our cultural desire to commit crimes. Fraud spreads like an infection if the environment tolerates and justifies it. Let's change the norms and morals. Let criminals pay for their crimes with prison, no matter the amount stolen, nor the age or the length of the sentence. And let's pursue even the smallest slip. Zero tolerance. It would be better for us.
