When honest people cheat, and cheaters are honest: Cognitive control processes override our moral default

Abstract

Every day, we are faced with the conflict between the temptation to cheat for financial gains and maintaining a positive image of ourselves as being a 'good person'. While it has been proposed that cognitive control is needed to mediate this conflict between reward and our moral self-image, the exact role of cognitive control in (dis)honesty remains elusive. Here, we identify this role, by investigating the neural mechanism underlying cheating. We developed a novel task which allows for inconspicuously measuring spontaneous cheating on a trial-by-trial basis in the MRI scanner. We found that activity in the Nucleus Accumbens promotes cheating, particularly for individuals who cheat a lot, while a network consisting of Posterior Cingulate Cortex, Temporoparietal Junction and Medial Prefrontal Cortex promotes honesty, particularly in individuals who are generally honest. Finally, activity in areas associated with Cognitive Control (Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Inferior Frontal Gyrus) helped dishonest participants to be honest, whereas it promoted cheating for honest participants. Thus, our results suggest that cognitive control is not needed to be honest or dishonest per se, but that it depends on an individual's moral default.

Individual differences in (dis)honesty are represented in the brain’s functional connectivity: Robust out-of-sample prediction of cheating behavior

“…In addition, numerous studies have proposed that cognitive control is needed to resolve this tension between reward and self-concept (Abe & Greene, 2014;Greene & Paxton, 2009;Maréchal, Cohn, Ugazio, & Ruff, 2017;Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009). In accordance with these findings, the study by Speer et al (2020) revealed that activity in cognitive control regions, namely the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG; Swick et al, 2008;Carter & Van Veen, 2007) were recruited to resolve the conflict between self-interest and self-image.…”

“…As described in a previous study by Speer, Smidts and Boksem (2020), in the Spot-The-Difference task, participants were presented with pairs of images and were instructed that there were always three differences present between the image pairs. Differences consisted of objects that were added to or removed from an image, or objects that differed in color between images.…”

“…In addition to such anecdotal evidence, several studies have shown that, when given the opportunity, individuals indeed differ considerably in how frequently they cheat (Gino et al, 2012;, Speer, Smidts & Boksem, 2020. As in the example of the 'Wolf of Wallstreet', a greedy personality appears to be associated with dishonesty: research in social and personality psychology has found that greedy people indeed find a variety of moral transgressions more acceptable and engage in such unethical behaviors more frequently than less greedy people do (Seuntjens et al, 2019).…”

“…Recent neuroscientific evidence tends to support the notion of two opposing forces of greed and moral self-concept that steer us towards (dis)honesty. In a recent fMRI study (Speer, Smidts & Boksem, 2020), it was found that activity in the nucleus accumbens (Nacc), associated with reward anticipation and greed (Ballard & Knutson, 2009;Knutson, Adams, Fong, & Hommer, 2001;Abe & Greene, 2014), promotes cheating, particularly for individuals who tend to cheat a lot, whereas a network consisting of Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC), bilateral Temporoparietal Junctions (TPJ) and Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC), associated with self-referential thinking processes (Gusnard et al, 2001;Meffert et al, 2013;Van Buuren et al, 2010), promotes honesty, particularly in individuals who are generally honest. In addition, numerous studies have proposed that cognitive control is needed to resolve this tension between reward and self-concept (Abe & Greene, 2014;Greene & Paxton, 2009;Maréchal, Cohn, Ugazio, & Ruff, 2017;Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009).…”

“…To test these hypotheses, we used a sample of 99 participants who completed a resting state scan and the 'Spot-The-Difference Task' (see Gai & Puntoni, 2017;Speer, Smidts & Boksem, 2020). This is an innovative task in which participants could cheat repeatedly, deliberately and voluntarily without suspicion of the real purpose of the task.…”