An Extreme Take on The Ten Commandments Experiment
We once ran a study on cheating where we asked students to try to recall the Ten Commandments before an exam, and found that this moral reminder deterred them from cheating. Well, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University recently made practical use of the study – but in an extreme way.
Fed up with the low ethical standards among his MBA students, Professor Michael Tang passed out an honor pledge that not only listed the Ten Commandments, but also included a concluding flourish indicating that those who cheated would “be sorry for the rest of [their] life and go to Hell.” In response, several students called the department chair to complain and a good deal of controversy ensued.
But what the news coverage didn’t address (perhaps because no one at the school had) were the merits of this extreme pledge. Might this be an effective way of curbing dishonesty? I think yes, very much so. I also suspect that even those who don’t believe in God would take this pledge seriously.
Still, though I don’t doubt its effectiveness, the question remains whether we want to invoke such stringent punishments (stringent for those who believe, that is) on an MBA exam. Judging from the reactions in this case, I’m guessing that for most people, the answer is “no.” But it also makes me wonder about the people who didn’t want to sign this pledge….
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves
How come, a Professor is in need for such means?
Definitelly Not an expert in Motivation, nor an example for confidence in his students.
Good story!
Need to add to it: Jesus’ NT modified the OT 10 commandments and made them as Hebrews says, “better” and “superior” to the old.
He adds: And love your neighbor as yourself; Even if you think of murder, your just as culpable; Same for adultery; And work on Sunday ain’t so bad.
Hope this helps.
Sounds too much like a threat – and I would like to believe that the God I believe in has mercy.
Cheating of course is not a good thing–but neither are threats or coersion
Seems to me to be more of a problem with the pledge being unexpected, arbitrary, and belittling, than anything else. Imagine if while reading your mortgage contract you came upon a clause threatening anal probing by Martians in case of foreclosure. It would not only be the people planning to default on their mortgages who would be upset by the clause.
Dear Dan,
As an agnostic student, I wouldn’t personally take this pledge as an offense, as it may actually sound more like dry humor to me than anything else.
Now, the mention of such a drastic repercussion on ourselves ( i assume those who believe in hell would rather not spend too much time down there ) is slightly too provocant..
In another situation, we could immagine a sign at the entrance of a fruits shop saying ” If you steal an apple, you will be dishonored for the rest of your life”. But would you give the same negative influence on oneself’s honor if a person steals an apple/cheats at an exam or i.e betrays his spouse ? I think some abstract ideas such as honor, or the concept of heaven/hell are guidelines for human beings. They influence some actions depending on the importance these persons give to morality, and therefore is a really personal mesure.
I believe the student’s reaction was an answer to the teacher’s warning sentence, interpreted as an agression to their mesure of morality : of course cheating is not allowed, but some persons would allow it more easily than others, and so not agree with going to hell for “such a tiny breach” to the teacher’s ethics.
Don’t you think that if not only Prof. Tang started exaggerating every punishment for actions, but everyone in society, we would see a fall in the ethics level rather than an increase like you mentionned in your post ? I believe that the objective risks of fraud should rather be stated ( fail the exam, get kicked out of the university..) as everyone can use his own measure of morality to judge either it is worth cheating or not. All in all, it is not to a professor to determine what sin will send someone to eternal repentance, is it ?
Looking forward to hear what you think of this,
Theo T
If they weren’t cheating, they would have nothing to worry about. I think the ones who complained were obviously the cheaters.
So, if people complain about being illegally wiretapped by the government, they must obviously be guilty of something, right? I can’t possibly have a legitimate complaint, as an atheist, to being compelled to sign an honor code mentioning God, then?
I think that threats of brimstone and hellfire are intimidating, even if they are meant in jest and even if one is an atheist. Such threats insinuate that the one making the threat believes that people with different beliefs are intrinsically evil and are going to hell. I find it unsettling, even though I am an atheist. I would think that this type of vicious “joke” could depress the test results of non-Christians.
I think both Chris, above, and Dan, in the last line of the article, are being unreasonable and unfair in tarring the complainants as cheaters.
Put yourselves in the shoes of an honest atheist or other person who doesn’t believe in Hell – especially one sensitive to the abuse of religion and discrimination against non-Christians in the USA.
Firstly, they are having religious tenets they disbelieve or disagree with pushed upon them by an authority figure they are beholden to.
Then, they are asked to sign their name to a lie – that they agree to some conditions they clearly don’t agree with.
Finally, insult to injury, they are being accused of cheating for complaining about being put in this position.
Sure, they could shrug it off, and lie on the form, but who knows – perhaps the commandment not to bear false witness reminded them to stick to the truth?
Knowing the 10 Commandments doesn’t stop a person from violating them. Never has, never will. The Mosaic Law serves only as a mirror or spotlight that convicts the lawbreaker (in their conscience) of wrong-doing.
Frank,
You might like to read Ariely’s book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty, where he shows being reminded of the 10 Commandments reduces cheating. This discussion isn’t about “knowing” them, or even believing them. It is about thinking about moral behaviour. (See http://www.superscholar.org/interviews/dan-ariely/). Nor is it about wiping out all violations, just reducing them.
Prof. Tang’s flourish indicating that those who cheated would “be sorry for the rest of [their] life and go to Hell”, if that’s what Tang actually wrote into his exam, should confine his area of scholastic expertise to MBA studies. As a theologian (or even a Christian), his theology is sorely lacking.
Dr. Tang is not only a poor theologian (conflating, among other things, a New Testament punishment and an Old Testament transgression) but also finds himself guilty of the deadly sins of pride and anger, while lacking in all three religious virtues. The faith, hope, and charity displayed toward the students here tends toward zero. Fix that before invoking the Ten Commandements.
If you don’t covet your neighbors’ goods, then why are you getting an MBA?
Amen, brother!!
The first time one encounters this kind of thing it is probably a confronting experience but after a while it would cease to have much of an impact. So this kind of thing should be used sparingly to avoid reducing it’s potential effectiveness.
I wonder if this would alter a person’s mental state when taking the test beyond the realm of cheating; making some just so uncomfortable that they may not perform as well as they may otherwise….
Just wondering…..
There are many more effective ways in preventing students from cheating. One of them being to simply separate them in the lecture hall. There’s no need to threaten someone with an uncertain statement which is based on one’s faith. Rather, if they are caught cheating, then they don’t graduate. Easy.
Have you ever run a course and found people cheating? Maybe some institutions handle this kind of thing differently, but in my experience catching people cheating isn’t always in your best interests career-wise. The best possible outcome is to work hard at designing assessments that severely limit the opportunities for cheating.
As a lifelong atheist I think I would rip this pledge up on the spot. It would be the honest thing to do.
I’ve begun to suspect that the whole purpose of organized religion (besides the socialization styling of belonging to a club) is that many, if not most, people need punitive threats in order to do the right thing. But which came first? Do people need punitive messaging in order to do the right thing, or are people conditioned to rebel if the messaging isn’t there, and do the wrong thing as an act of rebellion.
I have to wonder what would happen if, in a university setting, you took a test/wrote a paper, and then after taking the test, had the opportunity to correct your work or do extra credit in order to demonstrate that you actually learned the material, rather than did what was needed to get the grade?
I really wish this tactic was used as a way to remind people of their moral standards when it comes to shopping more responsibly.
Companies are very quick to brand their products ‘fair trade’ and ‘free range’ etc, but if they were forced to also brand things as ‘unfair trade’ and ‘caged’ then may be this would have a similar effect on peoples spending as reminding people of the ten commandments has on thier cheating?
I’ve explored these ideas on my blog:
http://atlasembraced.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/cheating-and-consumerism-well-at-least.html
Go to hell comment could cause rebellion as it is a religious context.
I teach a program called “The Divine Decalogue for Dynamic Decency,” which delivers the 10 Commandments in positive paraphrases that highlight the desired behaviors they are designed to produce. For instance Command number 6 is “Mercy Mitigates Murder” and Command 8 is “Do not rip off others and yourself out of God’s plan for both your material blessings.”
The 10 Commands explain the objective standards of behavior everyone should adhere to. Though none of us may keep them perfectly, society was far better off when most people consented to their validity, as opposed to today, where government works to expunge them from our individual and national conscience. Read a short 333 word blog about it here: http://bit.ly/DivDecDynDec
Do these methods have a lasting effect?
If they sign this at the start of every test, does the cheating increase as time goes on? I can understand the initial surprise effect but suspect this would not help long term.
It’s an remarkable piece of writing for all the web people; they will get advantage from it I am sure.|
Hi there, just changed into alert to your blog via Google, and located that it is really informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful in the event you continue this in future. Many other folks might be benefited from your writing. Cheers!%7
Aw, this was a really nice post. Taking a few minutes and actual effort to create a really good article… but what can I say… I hesitate a whole lot and never manage to get anything done.|