Psychopathy and Dishonesty: How Moral Identity Shapes Cheating Behavior

Ordinary People and Moral Rationalization

Research by Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) shows that ordinary people often find ways to cheat and still believe themselves to be honest. People accomplish this by rationalizing their actions and preserving a self-concept of honesty and integrity. Most people are willing to stretch or manipulate their moral codes under certain circumstances, particularly when they can find ways to maintain a self-concept or project the image of being honest.

How Psychopaths Might Respond Differently

A psychopath would theoretically be less concerned with self-concept or reputation than the ordinary person. Like anyone else, psychopaths will be driven to "minimize risk to themselves" and ensure they do not get caught (Grohol, n.d.). The ordinary people in the Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) study likewise do not want to get caught. However, the psychopath might be more inclined to cheat for the sake of cheating, and more often than the ordinary person who cheats primarily for things like financial gain or in competitive scenarios (Mazar, Amir & Ariely, 2008).

If Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) were to redesign their cheating studies so that the experimental group consisted of clinically diagnosed psychopaths versus a control group of persons with no mental illness diagnosis, the results might differ significantly. In particular, psychopaths would tend to respond less robustly to attempted controls such as the use of religion as a motivator (Experiment 1), through honesty and commitment reminders (Experiment 2), or any experiment that directly hinges on self-concept. One exception may arise if the researchers designed a study in which the consequences of being caught would infringe on the psychopath's rights or reputation. Given that psychopaths often manipulate other people or their environment to avoid getting caught, the research would likely reveal that if getting caught were a certain consequence, the psychopath might refrain from cheating. The psychopath may be aware of the social stigma against cheating, but conforming to social norms is not the concern it is for an average person. A psychopath would not care to be labeled a cheater but would not experience any cognitive dissonance regarding self-concept. It is not that psychopaths view themselves as being honest; rather, they likely view themselves as being opportunistic. Glenn et al. (2010) found that psychopaths do not "construe their personal identities in moral terms" (p. 1). The average person, however, clearly values moral foundations (Mazar, Amir & Ariely, 2008).

Trust, Morality, and Self-Deception

The psychopath would be as much or even less inclined to trust other people. In research on the prevalence of cynicism, skepticism, and mistrust, Fetchenhauer & Dunning (2010) found that a surprising number of people are loathe to trust others. Psychopaths tend to be highly intelligent and calculating and therefore not prone to gullibility (Grohol, n.d.). A psychopath would not be trustworthy, and nor would he or she trust others. The underlying presumption would be that each person has the capacity to bend and twist moral codes to their benefit, and because of that, there is no such thing as a truly moral person.

In an ironic way, a psychopath is more honest than the average person in the sense that the average person pretends to be honest even when he or she is not, doing so with a great degree of self-deception. The psychopath, on the other hand, eschews conventional morality and therefore rarely if ever engages in self-deception. This is why a psychopath would respond differently to most of the cheating tests administered in the Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) set of studies. Most of the studies use some form of motivation or stimuli that the psychopath would not respond to in the same way as a typical individual.

Opportunism as a Universal Trait

Furthermore, Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) show that most people, not just psychopaths, are opportunistic. When a cost-benefit analysis is used and it is determined that the benefits of cheating outweigh the costs of being caught, then most people will cheat. The psychopath is no different. Most people do not have the absolute moral standards that they profess to have or imagine themselves to have. The average person has more in common with a psychopath than they may care to admit. People are often willing to compromise their internal moral codes or violate external codes of ethics when the perceived benefits—either intrinsic or extrinsic—are very high.

Deterrents such as getting caught or cheating in a way that would force a person to reckon with their sense of integrity, or in a way that made them feel guilty, change the game. An ordinary person cannot live with the same level of guilt as a psychopath, which is why the ordinary person will stop cheating when his or her self-concept might need to change to match the behavior. Yet as Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008) point out, any time a person can manipulate reality or justify their actions to make it seem to themselves that they are still honest, they will do so. Few people have moral codes that are tight and immutable, according to the research by Mazar, Amir & Ariely (2008).

Conclusion: The Psychopath's Moral Clarity

Psychopaths differ from the average person in significant ways. Examining deviant behaviors is one way of illuminating those differences. When faced with the opportunity to cheat for personal gain, both psychopaths and ordinary people will respond by cheating when they can avoid getting caught. The ordinary person may justify his or her behavior, but the psychopath likely does not need to waste time or energy on doing so because their internal self-concept is unrelated to any sense of morality or social constraint. The average person cares about their reputation and, perhaps more importantly, about avoiding the cognitive dissonance that might arise from engaging in dishonest behavior.