Analysis of NYT article on Cheating
I’ve always enjoyed reading The NY Times Science section on Tuesdays. The Extra Credit project presented an opportunity to read more and do some research on few recent articles. My favorite was “Cheating’s Surprising Thrill” published on October 17, 2013 by Jan Hoffman. The purpose of the project is to analyze how accurately an article in a media reflects the actual study.
The research study was conducted at the University of Washington, the London Business School, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. The title: “The Cheater’s High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior.” The abstract of that study states that if an unethical behavior does not seem to inflict harm on a real person, the cheater does not feel guilty or ashamed. Across six experiments, the experimenters find that although people expect to experience negative affect after over-reporting their performance on cognitive tasks, they actually experience a boost in positive affect. These findings challenge existing models of ethical decision making and offer cause for concern. Based on results of this study the scientists conclude that this very boost became the reason for engaging in unethical behavior in the first place in those puzzling instances when the reward for cheating itself is low. It is imperative that we develop our understanding of how emotions influence our moral behavior, how our moral behavior influences our emotions, and how people expect these relationships to work.
I read the study and compared it to the newspaper article. The NY Times article accurately represented the abstract discussion and conclusions. The study findings themselves are reflected correctly. The article stated clearly the expected results, which is that participants who engaged in lying would feel more positive that those who didn’t. The experiment was structured with subjects taking a word-scrambling test. The subjects were giving an answer key but told not to use it. In one
The research study was conducted at the University of Washington, the London Business School, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. The title: “The Cheater’s High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior.” The abstract of that study states that if an unethical behavior does not seem to inflict harm on a real person, the cheater does not feel guilty or ashamed. Across six experiments, the experimenters find that although people expect to experience negative affect after over-reporting their performance on cognitive tasks, they actually experience a boost in positive affect. These findings challenge existing models of ethical decision making and offer cause for concern. Based on results of this study the scientists conclude that this very boost became the reason for engaging in unethical behavior in the first place in those puzzling instances when the reward for cheating itself is low. It is imperative that we develop our understanding of how emotions influence our moral behavior, how our moral behavior influences our emotions, and how people expect these relationships to work.
I read the study and compared it to the newspaper article. The NY Times article accurately represented the abstract discussion and conclusions. The study findings themselves are reflected correctly. The article stated clearly the expected results, which is that participants who engaged in lying would feel more positive that those who didn’t. The experiment was structured with subjects taking a word-scrambling test. The subjects were giving an answer key but told not to use it. In one