An Experiment in Honesty

An Experiment in HonestyAuthor(s): Harold T. ChristensenSource: Social Forces, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Mar., 1948), pp. 298-302Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2572053 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.176 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:04:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2572053?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


298 SOCIAL FORCES

medicine have been established in a few schools,22 and participation by sociologists in clinical teaching is mentioned in The Report on Teaching of Social and Environmental Factors in Medicine previously cited. Similarly, sociological juris- prudence which embodies more than strictly sociological material is being introduced into a few law schools. Educational sociology has been contributing to professional education for many years. Besides, schools of social work and schools of nursing have not only recommended sociological content for pre-professional training but have included courses in community organization and the family in their professional curricula. A number of emergent professions connected with agriculture are finding courses in rural sociology increasingly essential to adequate training.

In addition to determining the specific sociological materials to be included in professional instruction the problems of timing and teaching must also be solved. What is to be required in pre-professional years and what is to be included in successive professional courses must be worked

out in detail. Furthermore, what is to be taught by sociologists in professional schools and what sociology is to be incorporated into the materials given by non-sociologists remains to be deter- mined through collaborative investigation. The broadening conceptions of professional responsibility and service are so recent that practice among professional schools is quite varied. There is no uniformity or consensus at present. Cur- ricula are so crowded already that general revision will be necessary to dose the gap between what is desired and what is practiced.

In the meantime a very significant effort is being made to do all that is possible to overcome the educational lag which exists at the moment. Postgraduate and in-service training is being employed to enable professional personnel to cope with the social changes which are occurring so rapidly. It is in short courses, institutes, conferences, and workshops for varied professional groups that sociologists can make. their immediate contributions.

AN EXPERIMENT IN HONESTY

HAROLD T. CHRlSTENSEN

Purdue University

As one moves from the physical sciences, through the biological, and into the social, experimentation as a technique of research becomes progressively more difficult. This is because of the greater complexity and intangibility of phenomena on the organic, and especially on the superorganic, levels. Speaking of this latter, we can observe that human beings, for the most part, refuse to be

analyzed in the test tube or to be dissected like a

guinea pig. It is relatively rare, therefore, that social scientists can experiment, in the sense of observing their data perform under carefully controlled conditions; most usually they must rest content with statistical manipulations of

historical data, administered as a kind of sociological post-mortem.

Yet, experimentation in human behavior is possible; and, as a sociological research technique,

it is gaining ground. There are some sociological laboratories already existing in society; others can be created. Of those now established, the schoolroom offers one of the most promising opportunities for experimental research, both because of its somewhat homogeneous population and uniform stimuli (which can be altered at will), and also because it is so readily accessible to high school teachers, college professors, and others of the research mind.

Using honesty as the phenomenon to be studied, the writer "experimented" with such an experiment at Brigham Young University during the Autumn quarter of 1946. It is reported here without value-judgment as to the behavior involved, with a full knowledge of its technical limitations as a piece of research, and for whatever interest it may have to others in the field from the stand- points of both subject matter and methodology. 22Richardson, op. cit., p. 270.



TEACIHING AND RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 299'

THE EXPERIMENT DESCBED

We were of the opinion that expediency is so much a part of human nature that many, if not most, persons will bend their conduct a little, and then rationalize, when self-interest is at stake. More specifically, we felt that, if students were misgraded on an examination, more of those who were undergraded would request a correction than would those who were graded too high. Our problem then was to put this hypothesis to the test.

Objective mid-term examinations were administered to six different sections and classes in lower division sociology, there being 639 students involved in all. Each paper was then corrected, with individual questions being accurately scored, but with the total score being omitted from the paper for the time being and recorded on a separate list. Correct total scores were then recorded on those 87 papers earning grades below sixty and those 68 earning grades ninety or above; which left 484 individuals, or 75.7 percent of all taking the examinations, with grades ranging from sixty through eighty-nine. These were to compose the experimental group. The 484 individual paper scores, with names attached, were then built into an array running in order from high to low. Next, by following the array items con- secutively, and weaving back and forth among six piles, it was possible to obtain required sub- groups that were approximately equal in size and homogenous in grade distribution. To each score in the first group was added ten points, and the resulting inflated score then recorded on the appropriate examination paper. This was to make it appear to the student who checked that a simple error in addition had been made. In like manner, papers falling in group two were over- scored six points, and those in group three, two points; while those in groups four, five, and six were underscored two, six, and ten poilnts respectively. Pencil recordings of these "doctored" grades were then made in the various roll books. Finally, the papers were returned to their student authors, and without a word or hint that anything was wrong, teachers waited for students to notice the "error" and request corrections. As each of these requests came in, teachers would act inno- cent, recheck the paper, suggest that the mistake might have been made by a careless reader, and then enter the corrected grades in the rolls in

ink-which gave us the opportunity later of determining those persons that had asked for changes. The experilnent was held in operation for one week, with a regular avalanche of requests coming to us the first day, but with these di- minishing rapidly thereafter until at the end they had practically ceased. Following this, and the tabulation of relevant data, roll books were completely corrected in ink with the proper grades, and the various classes were informed of the "hoax" that had been played upon them. This last provided considerable amusement, chagrin, and perhaps resolution on the part of some students. For the sake of the record this taking them into our confidence was considered necessary, but it did ruin any opportunity for additional experimentation there on this same problem for a number of years, at least until the memory of this one is dead.

In spite of all precautions, it is probable that a few students suspected that something was up, and that this fact colnditioned their behavior regarding the experiment. It seems likely that some would become suspicious by the mere fact that so many were finding errors. To test this assumption the writer asked his class of 178, after the experiment was over, to indicate how many had suspected anything. Ten individuals, or 5.7 percent of the total, answered that they had. None of these ten was in the group that had failed to ask for a correction, one was in the group with correct scores, three were with those that had been undergraded, and six were among those that had been graded too high.

RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

Table 1 shows that only 212 of the 484 students who were misgraded, or 43.8 percent, asked for a correction. Of these, only 37 were from the group that had been overgraded as against 175 from the group that had been undergraded, a ratio of nearly 1 to 5. Furthermore, the greater the misgrading, the greater was the percentage asking for a change; this was true with both the overgraded and the undergraded.

From Tables 2 and 3 it will be observed that it was the better students who were mnost alert to having the mistake corrected, whether the miiistake was in their favor or not. This is shown by the fact that, in five out of the six groups, the real- grade average was higher for those who asked for



300 SOCIAL FORCES

corrections than it was for those who did not (Table 2); and by the fact that, with both the over and the under graded, it was the higher

graded students who most frequently asked for

corrections (Table 3). Sex comparisons are not quite so conclusive.

From Table 4 it may be observed that a few more

females requested grade corrections than did males, but the differences were neither great nor were they consistent from group to group.

INTERPRETATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

We are interested in knowing why some students asked for grade corrections while others refrained from doing so. Our data, though not sufficient

TABLE 1

GENERAL SUMMARY OF RESULTS

CASES OVERGRADED CASES UNDERGRADED CLASSIFICATION TOTAL CASES

+10 +6 +2 Total -2 -6 -10 Total

Total cases ...................... 80 82 80 242 80 80 82 242 484

Cases asking corrections .............. 17 11 9 37 45 62 68 175 212

Percent asking corrections ...... ....... 21.2 13.4 11.2 15.3 56.2 77.5 82.9 72.3 43.8

TABLE 2

AVERAGE REAL-GRADE COMPARISON'S BETWEEN ThosE ASKING AND THOSE NOT ASKTNG FOR GRADE CORRECTIONS

CASES OVERGRADED CASES UNDERGRADED

CLASSIFICATION . CTOTAL

+10 +6 +2 Total -2 -6 -10 Total

Group asking corrections. . 82.9 82.2 75.4 81.0 77.6 77.9 77.6 77.7 78.3

Groupnotaskingcorrections..... 74.8 75.5 76.2 75.5 75.3 72.9 71.4 73.9 75.1

Total . 76.5 76.4 76.1 76.3 76.5 76.8 76.6 76.6 76.5

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE GRADE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISONS BETWEEN THOSE ASKING AND THOSE NOT ASKING FOR GRADE CORRECTIONS

GRADE RANGE FREQUENCIES

CLASSIFICATION Cases overgraded Cases undergraded TOTAL overgraded undergraded ~~~~CASES

60-69 70-79 80-89 Total 60-69 70-79 80-89 Total

Group asking corrections..... 7.1 8.3 25.5 15.3 58.9 67.9 82.9 72.3 43.8

Group not asking corrections ..... 92.9 91. 7 74.5 84.7 41.1 32.1 17.1 27.7 56.2

Total . ............. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1CO.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 4

MALE-FEMALE COMPARISONS OF PERCENT ASKING FOR GRADE CORRECTION

CASES OVERGRADED CASES UNDERGRADED TOTAL

CLASSIFICATION __ CASES

+10 +6 +2 Total -2 -6 -10 Total

Males ......................... 20.0 13.6 9.3 13.9 57.8 72.7 86.1 71.1 41.5

'Females .... 22.2 13.2 13.5 16.7 54.2 80.6 80.4 73.4 45.9

Total .. 21.2 1 13.4 11.2 15.3 56.2 77.5 82.9 72.3 43.8



TEACHING AND RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 301

for final answers to this problem, may at least be suggestive.

In the first place, it must be recognized that of those who reported the error some were motivated by a high sense of honor or ethical correctness, and others by a desire for self-advantage. By and large, those who were overgraded and reported the errors would fall in the first category and those who asked for a change when undergraded would fall in the second. While, from the data at hand, we cannot be certain of the percentage distributions of these two motives, we can be fairly sure that self-interest usually proves stronger than ethical principle in a situation such as this.

Additional light may be thrown upon the problem by trying to get at the many reasons

other students had for failure to report the errors. One of these, quite obviously, was the lack of awareness on the part of some that a mistake had been made; they simply neglected to check their score and hence failed to observe the error. Just how many were in this category we cannot be sure, but since only 82.9 percent of those who were downgraded as much as ten points asked for a change, we are reasonably safe in assuming that the percentage of unawareness would be at least fifteen or twenty. But it is possible, and even seems probable, that the percentage might be higher than this, for a small mistake may not be so often noticed as a large one, and an over- grading may tend to produce a contentment that would work against the type of critical rechecking

that would be necessary to the discovery of the error.

Nevertheless, even after allowing for this group differential in the awareness factor, there must be recognized other reasons too, including various rationalizations, if the phenomenon is to be entirely explained. We do not have all of the answers, but we do see a few leads.

In order to get the students' reasons for their behavior, in so far at least as they were able or willing to communicate them, the writer used his own large class as a sample; and, as a follow-up to the experiment, asked all in the class who had been misgraded and had not asked for a correction to indicate on a slip of paper their reason for this line of action. Categorized answers were listed

for them to choose from, and their responses, as summarized, are shown in Table 5.

Several significant observations may be made: (1) All of the respondents rationalized their conduct in some way. As showni by item D, none admitted that he was wrong. (2) Thirty- five of the seventy-two, or 48.6 percent, claimed not to have noticed the error. This may be a little high because of a possible tendency to rationalize conduct by feigning igniorance, but if correct it would mean that as high as one-fourth of the entire experimental group failed to notice the error. With only about two-fifths of the group asking for a correction, as observed above, this would still leave nearly one-third who noticed the error but failed to act on it. (3) Seventeen

TABLE 5

REASONS CLAIMED FOR NOT REQUESTING A GRADE CORRECTION

CASES OVLRGRADED CASES UNDERGRADED

REASONS - _TOTAL

+10 +6 +2 Total -2 -6 ) -10 Total C

A. Didn't check or notice aniything wrong . 8 12 8 28 1 4 2 7 35

B. Didn't consider the error largc enough to bother about .0 0 8 8 7 1 1 9 17

C. Thllought he was justified in keeping grade given even though it was in error .2 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 5

D. Knew he was wroJig but wanted to keep the grade given anyway ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E. Intended to ask for correction but hadn't gotten around to it .......... 2 2 0 4 0 G 0 0 4

F. Thought some other system of grading was used ................................... 6 5 C 11 0 0 0 0 11

Total cases .... 18 20 18 56 8 5 3 16 72



302 SOCIAL FORCES

of the 72, or 23.6 percent, explained their failure to ask for a correction on the grounds that they didn't consider the error large enough to bother about, and almost all of these were in groups where only two points had been added or sub- tracted. This is likely a real reason in the minds of people, when discrepancies are small, and it helps explain the tendency, observed in Table 1, for the proportion reporting errors to increase as the degree of the error increases-in both directions. Apparently the error must be reasonably large before it is considered of much consequence in either honesty or expediency. (4) While all of those undergraded explained their lack of a correction request either on grounds that they didn't notice their error or that they didn't consider it of much consequence, many of those overgraded gave other reasons, which appear to be rationalizations more than anything else- see items C, E, and F in the Table. On this point, we seem safe in concluding that, though part of the lower rate of reporting on the part of the overgraded may be explained by less awareness of the errors involved, much of the difference is to be explained by reasons of self-advantage, thor- oughly rationalized.

To supplement this approach, one of the other classes was instructed to hand in, unsigned, their reasons for seeking or not seeking a correction, as the case might be. Tlley were free to explain in any way they wished; reasons, in other words, were not suggested to them in advance. Yet, their reasons and rationalizations were similar to those discussed above. Explanations for not requesting a correction were given as: (1) didn't notice the error; (2) thought the error was too

small to bother about; (3) wasn't sure of the grading system; (4) lacked proper opportunity for obtaining the correction; (5) saw others that were overgraded too; and (6) wanted the higher score. Reasons for seeking a correction were given as: (1) wanted to see that the grade was correct; (2) wanted to be honest or to satisfy conscience; and (3) wanted to have a higher score, which in some cases would "raise my grade from a B to an A".

There is additional evidence that students are more motivated to seek a score correction if the change involved would mean a shift on the paperfromaD toa C, a C toaB, aB toanA, or vice versa. By special tabulation, we found from the total sample, that with the overgraded, 70.3 percent of those asking for a correction were cases involving such a cross-grade shift as against only 54.1 percent for those not asking for a change; and for the undergraded, the percentages were 65.1 and 43.3 respectively.

In summary, let it be recalled that, for the sample studied, nearly five times as many students who were shortchanged in grading asked that this error be rectified as did those who were long- changed. Thus, honesty, as measured in this way is associated with the direction of error. It is also related to the degree of error and the quality of scholarship, both in a positive way; and to sex, grade change possibilities, and to other factors (in all probability) which this study has not been able to reach. Motivations are many, and rationalizations are ever present to make the expedient seem like the ethical. Yet, some live by other, and perhaps higher, standards.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ERRORS

In an article published in the October, 1947, issue of Social Forces (Vol. 26, No. 1),

entitled "Social Aspects of Sex Distribution of the Aged Population," serious errors

are found in tables 7, 8, 9, 10. The author takes full responsibility for the errors and

regrets exceedingly that they occurred. He will be glad to furnish corrected tables upon request.

The author wishes to point out that while regrettable errors do occur in the tables

mentioned above, the essential conclusions of the article are not invalidated thereby. the problem of the aged population in our society is mainly the problem of the aging

women. MARION B. SMITH

Louisiana State University



Documents

An Experiment in Honesty