Monday, April 8: Dishonesty (Group #8 Presentation)
Group 8 Student Leaders, D.S., Arin, Christine, Sammy, and Woojin
Research into the science of honesty shows how lots of people can cheat a little bit, and then the boundaries of what actually constitutes cheating are not as clear. Basically, they push the envelope more and more and justify what they are doing gradually. This tendency allows people to misbehave and think of themselves as being upstanding citizens even while they are misbehaving. As such, this week’s readings will examine dishonesty under a (I) biological/evolutionary, (II) social, (III) literary, and (IV) economic lens.
Readings: Choose 1 from Each Category for your Response
(I) Biological/Evolutionary basis of dishonesty:
- “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism” by Robert Trivers
- “How the Brain Shapes Deception: An Integrated Review of the Literature” by Nobuhito Abe
(II) Social basis of dishonesty:
- “Infidelity in heterosexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex” by Kristen P. Mark, Erick Janssen, and Robin R. Milhausen
- “Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt” by Amy B. Brunella, Sara Staatsa, Jamie Bardenb, and Julie M. Huppa
- “Fudge Factor: A Look at a Harvard Science Fraud Case” by Scott O. Lilienfeld
(III) Literary basis of dishonesty
(IV) Economic basis of dishonesty:
- Freakonomics Chapter One: “What do School Teachers and Sumo Wrestlers have in common?” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (Expand contents to find chapter one)
- “Why Do (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs?” by Jeff Bercovici
- “On Our Buggy Moral Code” by Dan Ariely
- “Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior” by Francesca Gino, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely
After completing the above videos/readings, we ask you to write a response to one article for each of the four categories (thus, you will have four separate responses). Your response to an article in each of the categories should answer the following two questions:
- Describe your reaction to the reading; what was most interesting, thought provoking, or alarming? Discuss any insights, objections, or connections that you gained from the reading.
- What is a well-formed question for Professor Davidson and Professor Ariely that you would like answered?
Since we are asking for readings from four categories, we are not requiring peer responses.
Your Responses are due no later than 11:59 pm on Friday, April 5th.