big boasters or modest men: dishonesty in groups of males

This topic submitted by Gus Misuraca and Joey Gomberg (jgomberg@hotmail.com) at 1:18 am on 5/4/01. Additions were last made on Friday, May 4, 2001. Section: Myers.

ABSTRACT:
In this lab research project we set out to examine how the role of deception, as an adaptive social function, functions in our daily lives. We decided to investigate, in particular, the form of deception represented by boasting. We used 4 different cohesive bodies of college-aged males; two fraternities, one residence hall corridor, and one athletic team, to see if we could detect embellishment in respondents. We asked each survey respondent to rate their athletic ability, in terms of reflexes, against the other members of their group. Half of the surveyed groups were told before they responded that they would be given a short reflex test afterwards, and the other half of the groups were told nothing about a test. Our hypothesis was that, when respondents knew before they responded that they would be tested, they would be more inclined to represent their abilities more modestly. The secondary part of that hypothesis was that, if respondents knew nothing of a test, there would be a far greater number in the group that would rate themselves as above average. We assumed this because we believed that a motivation existed for them to want to represent themselves as well as possible if they did not think they could be caught in any deception.

Our research methods contained too many unexpected variables. We did not take into account different personalities and values of different fraternities. We did not take into account the affect that having people fill out surveys in front of their brothers would have. As a result, most of our data was inconclusive. We did not find any significant differences between the groups we tested and those we didnÕt test.

INTRODUCTION:
A mother comes in from the living room to find her 4 year old child sitting on the floor next to an overturned cookie jar. She immediately knows what has happened. When she questions her child as to what happened, the response she receives surprises her.

Mother: Honey, what happened here? Were you sneaking cookies before bedtime again?

Child: No! The cookie jar was just down here when I got here!

Deception. ItÕs everywhere, and virtually everyone deceives at some point in his or her life. In fact, most of us begin lying very early in our lives. ÒSeveral Studies have demonstrated deceptive behavior and lying in children as young as 2Ó(Ceci, 54). ÒYoung children can lie; they can emotionally mask their feelings and manipulate, give excuses, create illusions for themselves, and even deceive themselves. The fact that quite young children are capable of lying to avoid punishment suggests that the capacity for deception is probably pan-culturalÓ (Saarni, 19). Therefore, this topic is both relevant to all of human kind and also presents itself in each of our individual experiences.

However, humans are by no means the only species that uses deception as a means of attaining resources, furthering social status, or even surviving. For instance, some female fireflies in the genus Photirus will mimic the mating flashes of a female in the Photinus genus to attract a male of the Photinus genus. Then they eat him (Wright, 263). ÒEven some nonhuman primates can lie, and certainly there are many other animals that have been endowed with camouflaging coloration or the ability to mislead predators. Thus, misleading appearances and deception in general can very likely be found in all societiesÓ(Saarni, 24).
If lying or some other variation of deception seems to be a universal feature in both human and animal societies, why is there such an aversion to it? ÒThe world ÔlyingÕ, especially in this country, has a very powerful negative connotation. If you call someone a liar, you deliver a very significant insult. Given that so many people, in so many circumstances, are prone to lie, it is rather strange that the term is so offensive.Ó-(Saarni, 13). As universal as the tendency to deceive seems to be, the tendency of cultures to oppose it seems to be equally widespread.

ÒThe principle of veracity holds that, in the absence of special circumstances, truthful statements are preferable to lies. As such, a decision to deceive is often accompanied by considerable motivation to do so effectively. Deceivers usually understand and weigh consequences associated with detectionÓ (Miller, 14).

As children, our deceptions are simple and typically obvious, however, as we grow older, our lies become increasingly more complex and believable. In order to become more believable, we adapt in many ways. We learn how to control our facial movements, alter our tone of voice, and even begin, in some cases, to deceive ourselves into believing the lie so that we donÕt release detectable signs indicating our dishonesty. Essentially, Òwe deceive ourselves in order to deceive others betterÓ (Wright 264). This adaptation is necessary because without it, our deceptions would be far more discernable. Studies have shown Ò...subtle differences among smiles that signaled when adults told the truth or lied about experiencing pleasant feelings. When they actually enjoyed themselves, adults displayed smiles that implicated the outer muscle around the eyes; when they feigned enjoyment, their smiles contained traces of the muscular activity associated with disgust, fear, contempt, or sadnessÓ (Ceci, 63). Unless we convince ourselves of what we are saying, others will pick up on these tiny signals and become aware that we are not being honest.

Self-deception can even lead to deceiving others with out recognizing it. ÒWe can deceive others and not be aware that we are doing so...At the most extreme end of our psyche is the phenomenon of multiple personality disorders... on a more common everyday level, we may deceive others and simply not be aware of our own deception. For example, one can compliment another on that personÕs looks or what that person said and not mean it, but be unaware of itÓ(Saarni, 11). This is where the lines become fuzzy. If you are not aware that you are lying, can it truly be considered a lie? ÒLying is a subcategory of deceptionÉdeception includes a wide range of behaviors, including gesture, silence, and mimicry by animals, lying is defined as an intentionally deceptive message that is statedÓ (Ceci, 48).

Another category of deception is boasting, or exaggerating your achievements. Robert Wright explains that the kinds of lies we should expect people to tell are Òslight, hard to discredit, and hard to get tangled up inÓ (267). He goes on to quote Samuel Butler as saying ÒThe best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest wayÓ (267). For instance, the fisherman will tell the story of Òthe fish that got awayÓ. This is a good lie because it embellishes his achievements without the risk of being caught in the deception.

This example of boasting is archetypal of the kind of lying that we often find amongst boys and men. As ÒmenÕs lies are more self-centeredÓ (Saarni, 19). Women, on the other hand, tend to focus on the feelings of others, put a positive gloss on events, or falsely derogate themselves to prop up the ego of another when they deceive (Saarni, 19). Men and women tend to have different motivations to lie, different topics that they choose to lie about, and different approaches when they do set out to deceive. ÒWomen also tend to be more likely Ônot to seeÕ the lies communicated by others; it is as though they would rather not stir things up (in themselves or within the relationship) by detecting the lie; thus the possibility of being more self-deceptive may exist. Men are more likely to confront the deception, or, at the very least, pay attention to giveaway clues and entertain the suspicion that the other is trying to deceive themÓ (Saarni, 19).

One study allowed both a set of boys and girls to sit in a room with a toy that they were allowed to look at but not touch. Almost every single subject touched the toy, regardless of gender. However, when asked by the experimenter whether they had touched it, the girls were far more likely to deny that they had transgressed than were the boys (Ceci, 64). There were a few conjectures as to why this might be the case. One of the possibilities mentioned Òwas that girls, bring more interested in social approval than boys, were less likely to admit that they had peeked because such an admission would occasion disapproval from the adult experimenterÓ (Ceci, 64).

We recognize that males and females tend to respond to different motivations for deception. The desire to brag about oneÕs achievements for the benefit of social status seems to be more predominately male, whereas using deception in the interest of otherÕs feelings seems to be more predominately female. As a result of the different motivations for lying, we decided to study one gender rather than both. We opted to examine males and boasting because it seemed most likely to produce the best reportable data.

We figured that studying males in groups would give us the most certain results. We came to this conclusion for a couple of reasons: one, if the males recognized themselves as part of a group peers, they would have more motivation to lie because they would want to impress their buddies; and two, it would give them a ready group with whom to compare themselves.

Once in these ideal testing conditions, we supposed that many males would rate their athletic ability, in terms of reflexes, as above average. We thought this would be the case because they would want to increase their social status by embellishing when asked about their level of physical fitness. Having established a motivation for them to want to be dishonest about their abilities, we wanted to know if their tendency to over-rate their reflexes would diminish if they thought there was a possibility of being caught. We hypothesized that those who knew there was a chance of being tested would respond differently. Because they knew they would be caught in a lie, we thought they would be less likely to boast about their ability than those who knew nothing of a test.

We hoped to show that when a person knows his story will be challenged, he will be more inclined to modestly represent his abilities. Furthermore, that when a person feels there is no danger of having to verify his story, he will more likely represent his abilities in the best possible light, regardless of its accuracy.

METHODS:

After we decided we wanted to work with cohesive groups of males, we had to decide which groups we anted to work with. Fraternities seemed an easy and obvious choice, representing a ready-made body of males that were familiar with each otherÕs abilities and would be able to rate themselves accordingly. We also assumed that within a group of fraternity brothers, the motivation would exist to represent themselfas well as they possibly could. We chose two fraternities to work with initially, The Kappa Alpha Order, and The Pi Kappa Alphas: the KAÕs and the PIKES.

We surveyed both fraternities on the same night; going first through the PIKE house, and then moving down the street to the KA house. Both Fraternities had just finished chapter meetings, so the greatest possible number of members would be available for our testing. We went around both houses with an ÒescortÓ, our connection to the fraternity. Ryan Saulcido took us around to PIKES, and Matt Krainess took us around to KAÕs. We went door to door to the rooms of the residents of the Fraternity houses with our escort and asked them to fill out a one-question survey rating their athletic ability, in terms of reflexes in comparison to the other members of their fraternity. Their options were below average, average, or above average. In the PIKE house, we simply gave them the survey without telling them that they would be tested on their reflexive ability afterwards. In the KA house, we told each survey respondent before they answered that there would be a short reflex test when they finished. After they gave us their survey back, we gave them a brief reflex test that we constructed.

Our Òreflex testÓ consisted of us dropping a ruler above their hand and telling them to catch it. Theoretically, if you caught the ruler before it fell very far, you were above average, if you caught the ruler about halfway down, you were average, and if you caught it up near the top then you were below average. The test was highly unscientific, which we felt was okay, because we werenÕt actually documenting their ability, but presenting what could be construed as a potential challenge to their honesty.

We then began to consider what other groups of males might work for the purpose of our survey. We decided to use a sports team and the males that lived on 2McKee. Both groups also represented cohesive bodies of males that had a reasonably good knowledge of each otherÕs abilities, along with a motivation to compete.

We went door to door on the second floor of McKee, asking residents to fill out the same survey we used before, with the words Òother members of your hallÓ substituted for Òfraternity brothersÓ. We told all the members of 2McKee before we gave them the survey that they would be tested briefly after they responded. We then used a roster for the Cycling team and called each memberÕs room and asked them to rate their athletic ability in terms of reflexive speed in comparison to other members of their team. We made no mention of a test.

We then calculated the total number of above averages, averages, and below averages from each group. We compared these numbers for groups we tested against those we didnÕt. We then considered that the fact we surveyed some over the phone might have had something to do with our results, so we compared those numbers for ones we did in person versus those we did over the phone. We then attempted to use these comparisons to determine whether there was a significant difference between the number of people who would rate themselves as above average when they did not know they would be tested to those who knew their response would be Òchecked up onÓ. We also used those comparisons to try and determine if conducting the survey over the phone increased the number of averages or below averages we received. We thought this might be true because we were not present, and therefore a lesser motivation to impress might have existed.

We involve the class in our study by asking them if they knew any fraternities or teams that would be willing to work with us, which is how we came to survey Ryan SaulcidosÕs fraternity. We also involved the class through our posting our research proposal on the web and attempting to integrate class discussions into our research methods.

RESEARCH TIMELINE:

Week 8: submit proposal, come up with survey and reflex test
Week 9: determine which fraternities we will be working with and begin contacting them
Week 10: distribute a practice survey to our class (and possibly another western NS class) in order to ensure clarity
Week 11-13: carry out experiment
Week 14: figure out what the heck our results mean (yay statview!)
Week 15-17: write final project paper

SURVEYS
**********************************************************************
Athletic Ability Among Fraternity Members
NS II Research Project

How would you rate your reflexes in comparison to other members of your Fraternity?

Below Average Average Above Average

**********************************************************************
Athletic Ability Among Fraternity Members
NS II Research Project

How would you rate your reflexes in comparison to other members of your Fraternity?

Below Average Average Above Average

**********************************************************************
Athletic Ability Among Members of the Cycling Team
NS II Research Project

How would you rate your reflexes in comparison to other members of your Team?

Below Average Average Above Average

**********************************************************************
Athletic Ability Among Residents Of 2McKee
NS II Research Project

How would you rate your reflexes in comparison to other members of your Corridor?

Below Average Average Above Average

RESULTS:

To be honest, our results were rather inconclusive. We supposed that the males who knew they were being tested would rate themselves lower than the males who did not believe they were being tested. However, our data does not show this to be true. When comparing the results for below average, average, and above average responses between those tested and those not tested, we did not get a single P-value below .05. Therefore, the fact that some of the males knew they were going to be tested after filling out the survey and other males were confident they would not be tested made no significant difference in our results.
Of all the males we surveyed face-to-face, the percent of each group that rated themselves above average, average and below average were very similar, regardless of whether or not they believed they would be tested.

Group Contact Above Ave. Average Below Ave.
2 McKee in person 33% 54% 13%
Pikes in person 38% 60% 0%
KA House in person 38% 58% 4%
Cyclist phone 13% 75% 12%

As you can see, the cycling teamÕs responses were dramatically different from those of the other groups. Unlike the other groups, only 13% of the cycling team rated themselves as above average, and a very possible cause for this discrepancy is that we called them instead of surveying them in person. However, we have no conclusive evidence of this either, as we did not expect this variable to affect our results.

Given that that distributing the survey over the phone altered our responses, we incorporated that information when placing our data in StatView. We ran several unpaired comparisons. We compared the difference between above average results when the males were tested and when they were not, and then ran the same comparison for the average and below average responses. We then individually compared the below average, average and above average responses based on whether we called the subjects or met them in person.

CONCLUSION:

Despite our confidence in our methods of collecting data, we left many variables unaccounted for. The first is that we did not plan for the impact our presence would have on the results. When we were in the company of the males we were testing, the results were different from when we were not in their company (i.e. on the phone). Another variable is how many of their friends were around when they filled out the survey. Although we did not keep a record of who filled out the survey by themselves and who filled it out with several friends, we unofficially observed that the answers were swayed by the company (more on this later). A third, and probably the largest variable we did not plan for is personality.

Different organizations clearly draw different types of individuals. For the sake of our project, we are going to completely stereotype the members of the groups we studied, particularly the members of the KA house and the Pike house because this is where we saw the most obvious differences in personality. The Pike house seems to draw they archetypical frat boys, and weÕll say no more. The KA house, on the other hand, is considered Òthe gentlemanÕs fraternity.Ó As you can see, the two fraternities draw very different sets of males.

It is safe to assume that because of these different personalities, they hold different values. The Pike values seem to fall in line with stereotypical male values, whereas the KA boys seem to value more gentlemanly conduct. As a result, the conditions where members of the two fraternities would lie are probably different.

We noticed that when the boys were in groups, their answers tended to be affected by their company. When the Pike boys were among their friends, they were more likely to play up their abilities, rating themselves as above average. In contrast, the KA boys were more modest in their answers when their peers were near by. Both shifts in responses directly reflect the values of the particular community they are in, and therefore reflect the kinds of lies that will be most socially beneficial in the given contexts.

So, if we were to do this again, there are a few things we would most definitely change. One, we would give everyone the survey under the same conditions Ð either all over the phone, or all in person. Two, we would isolate each individual taking the test so his responses would not be affected by his peers (although another interesting experiment would be to record how answers differ when friends are around and when they are not). Three, instead of testing all of one fraternity and none of another, we would test half of both frats because, if we do not, we cannot control for the variable of personality.

The main thing we learned from doing this survey is that testing honesty is not an easy feat. There are so many complexities when dealing with personality, social pressure, and ethical issues that are difficult to prepare for. We most definitely became aware of a few more when doing this, but if we were to do it all over, there is still a good chance we would hit something unexpected. However, we still feel that this was a fun and worthwhile project.

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu