make it easier for any of us to lie and at the same time think of ourselves as honorable creatures. After all, more connected brains have more avenues to explore when it comes to interpreting and explaining dubious events—and perhaps this is a crucial element in the rationalization of our dishonest acts.
More Creativity Equals More Money
These findings made me wonder whether increased white matter could be linked to both increased lying and increased creativity. After all, people who have more connections among their different brain parts and more associations are presumably also more creative. To test this possible link between creativity and dishonesty, Francesca Gino and I carried out a series of studies. True to the nature of creativity itself, we approached the question from a variety of angles, starting with a relatively simple approach.
When our participants showed up at the lab, we informed them that they would answer some questions followed by a computerized task. The question set included many irrelevant questions about their general experiences and habits (these filler questions were designed to obscure the real intent of the study) and three types of questions that were the focus of the study.
In the first set of questions, we asked the participants to indicate to what degree they would describe themselves using some “creative” adjectives (insightful, inventive, original, resourceful, unconventional, and so on). In the second, we asked them to tell us how often they engage in seventy-seven different activities, some of which require more creativity and some less (bowling, skiing, skydiving, painting, writing, and so forth). In the third and last set of questions, we asked participants to rate how much they identified with statements such as “I have a lot of creative ideas,” “I prefer tasks that enable me to think creatively,” “I like to do things in an original way,” and other similar statements.
Once the participants completed the personality measures, we asked them to complete the dots task, which was presumably unconnected to the questions. In case you don’t recall this task, flip back to The “What- the- Hell” Effect in chapter 5, “Why Wearing Fakes Make Us Cheat More.”
What do you think happened? Would participants who chose a large number of creative adjectives, engaged in creative activities more frequently, and viewed themselves as more creative cheat more, less, or about the same as the participants who were not as creative?
We found that participants who clicked the more-on-right button (the one with the higher payout) more often tended to be the same people who scored higher on all three creativity measures. Moreover, the difference between more and less creative individuals was most pronounced in the cases where the difference in the number of dots on the right and left sides was relatively small.
This suggested that the difference between creative and less creative individuals comes into play mostly when there is ambiguity in the situation at hand and, with it, more room for justification. When there was an obvious difference between the number of dots on the two sides of the diagonal, the participants simply had to decide whether to lie or not. But when the trials were more ambiguous and it was harder to tell if there were more dots to the right or the left of the diagonal, creativity kicked into action—along with more cheating. The more creative the individuals, the better they were at explaining to themselves why there were more dots to the right of the diagonal (the side with the higher reward).
Put simply, the link between creativity and dishonesty seems related to the ability to tell ourselves stories about how we are doing the right thing, even when we are not. The more creative we are, the more we are able to come up with good stories that help us justify our selfish interests.
Does Intelligence Matter?
Although this was an intriguing result, we didn’t get too excited just yet. This first study showed that creativity and dishonesty are correlated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that creativity is directly linked to dishonesty. For example, what if a third factor such as intelligence was the factor linked to both creativity and dishonesty?
The link among intelligence, creativity, and dishonesty seems especially plausible when one considers how clever people such as the Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff or the famous check forger Frank Abagnale (the author of
Again, picture yourself as one of our participants. This time, the testing starts before you even set foot in the lab. A week earlier, you sit down at your home computer and complete an online survey, which includes questions to assess your creativity and also measure your intelligence. We measure your creativity using the same three measures from the previous study, and measure your intelligence in two ways. First, we ask you to answer three questions designed to test your reliance on logic versus intuition using a set of three questions collected by Shane Frederick (a professor at Yale University). Along with the correct answer, each question comes with an intuitive answer that is in fact incorrect.
To give you an example, try this one: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”
Quick! What’s the answer?
Ten cents?
Good try, but no. It’s the seductive answer, but not the right one.
Although your intuition prods you to answer “$0.10,” if you rely on logic more than intuition, you’ll check your answer just to be sure: “If the ball were $0.10, the bat would be $1.10, which combine to equal $1.20, not $1.10 (.1 + (1 + .1) = 1.2)! Once you realize that your initial instinct is wrong, you enlist your memory of high school algebra and produce the correct solution (.05 + (1 + .05) = 1.1): 5 cents. Doesn’t it feel like the SATs all over again? And congratulations if you got it right. (If not, don’t worry, you would have most likely aced the two other questions on this short test.)
Next, we measure your intelligence through a verbal test. Here you’re presented with a series of ten words (such as “dwindle” and “palliate”), and for each word you have to choose which of six options is closest in meaning to the target word.
A week later, you come to the lab and settle into one of the computer-facing chairs. Once you’re situated, the instructions begin: “You’ll be taking part in three different tasks today; these will test your problem-solving abilities, perceptual skills, and general knowledge. For the sake of convenience, we’ve combined them all into one session.”
First up is the problem-solving task, which is none other than our trusty matrix task. When the five minutes for the test are over, you fold your worksheet and drop it into the recycling bin. What do you claim is your score? Do you report your actual score? Or do you dress it up a little?
Your second task, the perceptual skills task, is the dots test. Once again, you can cheat all you want. The incentive is there—you can earn $10 if you cheat in every one of the trials.
