In a die-rolling experiment, study participants could increase their earnings by cheating rather than telling the truth.
The researchers found that people cheated a significant amount of the time. However, many participants also stuck to the truth.
"Most people seem to weigh motives of self-interest against honesty on a case-by-case basis; they cheat a little but not on every possible occasion," said Michel Marechal, Professor at the University of Zurich (UZH) in Switzerland.
However, about eight per cent of the participants cheated in whenever possible and maximised their profit.
This non-invasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive ie they are more likely to be active.
When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat. However, the number of consistent cheaters remained the same.
"This finding suggests that the stimulation mainly reduced cheating in participants who actually experienced a moral conflict, but did not influence the decision making process in those not in those who were committed to maximising their earning," said Christian Ruff, Professor at UZH.
They found no effects for other types of conflict that do not involve moral concerns (ie financial decisions involving risk, ambiguity, and delayed rewards).
Similarly, an additional experiment showed that the stimulation did not affect honest behaviour when cheating led to a payoff for another person instead of oneself and the conflict was therefore between two moral motives.
The pattern of results suggests that the stimulated neurobiological process specifically resolves trade-offs between material self-interest and honesty.
According to the researchers, these findings are an important first step in identifying the brain processes that allow people to behave honestly.
The new results raise the question to what degree honest behavior is based on biological predispositions, which may be crucial for jurisdiction.
"If breaches of honesty indeed represent an organic condition, our results question to what extent people can be made fully liable for their wrongdoings," said Marechal.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
