In his book The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty behavioral economist Dan Ariely applies his innovative experimental approaches to show how we "lie to everyone -- especially ourselves." While by itself the book can be sufficiently unsettling as it unmasks disappointing human behavior in a variety of normal day-to-day situations, it does give us an interesting vehicle through which to carry forward our exploration of System 1 versus System 2 thinking from our more recent ABCs.

In this sense, it is important to note that Prof. Ariely relies on social science research "averages" in reaching his conclusions - that is, on average, research subjects were observed reacting in this or that way to the staged stimulus defining the experiment. In personal development, understanding individual differences is fundamental to the success of coaching interventions intent on modifying behavior. As such, at CIMBA we tend to scrutinize the research subject pool closely to see if systematic individual differences in reactions could be influencing those averages. In large measure, together advances in brain-imaging technology and neuroscience have provided a means and a scientific basis respectively for this inquiry. If there are systematic individual differences, then coaching strategies can be modified or even defined anew to better assist in making personal improvements - coaches themselves are quick to point out that one size clearly does not fit all and our system serves to collect and analyze relevant data to that specific end.

In cases relevant to our personal development model where we suspect the systematic influence of individual differences, we either encourage the scientist to revisit the data and control for the influence, or replicate the experiment ourselves if costs and opportunity allow in order to verify our suspicions. This is most frequently the case when we sense that differences in individual self-regulatory ability may be driving important systematic, predictable differences in responses. Recall from past ABCs that self-regulatory ability is an important brain function largely at the command of our System 2 thinking. In reacting to a stimulus, an individual with low self-regulatory ability may not have adequate "brain time" to elicit System 2's more rational thinking. Instead, System 1 (effortlessly) deploys the individual's developed habitual reaction, often bringing about a less effective response than what would have been the case had System 2 cognitively addressed it. Conversely, individuals with high self-regulatory ability would arguably have adequate brain time to engage System 2 thinking or to have developed more productive, constructive, or healthy System 1 responses in many such situations. From a coaching perspective, the intervention strategy and approach to personal development would clearly differ between these two individuals.

The book begins with a critique of the research asserting that dishonesty is a result of an individual's rational cost-benefit calculation (what we would call System 2 thinking). In showing evidence to the contrary, his experiments reveal that neither the size of the reward nor the probability of getting caught substantially affects the likelihood of dishonest behavior - results arguably more in tune with System 1 rather than System 2 thinking. Prof Ariely sees two conflicting motivations in dishonest behavior. On the one hand, individuals want to view themselves as being honorable ("We cheat up to the level that allows us to retain our self-image as reasonable honest individuals." Page 23); and, on the other hand, we also want the benefits of cheating (Page 27). So we "fudge" a little, deceiving both others and ourselves in the process. In this sense, an individual would not likely steal cash from their company petty cash drawer to buy computer printer paper, but rather would be more likely to steal their company's paper itself (Page 33). In fact, Professor Ariely argues that in such situations our "cognitive flexibility" provides us with so much mental leeway that we often do not perceive ourselves as getting away with anything unethical or dishonest. This cognitive flexibility seemingly allows us to keep such contradictions between our values (along with our basic beliefs and goals) and our behavior beyond our consciousness (what we would refer to as being embedded in a System 1 habitual reaction).

The book is full of interesting examples of how we "deceive ourselves about cheating." For example, as a rule, "people cheat when they have a chance to do so, but not by a whole lot" (Page 145). Given the opportunity to cheat more, individuals on average "limit their cheating apparently to an amount that allows them to maintain their self-perception as being an honest person" (Page 23). Also, "cheating becomes much simpler when there are more steps between us and the dishonest act" (Page 59). On average, we are more averse to taking cash directly but much more likely to behave dishonestly to get a reward that, in the end, has cash value (recall the computer paper example from above). Prof. Ariely argues that in such situations, "psychological distance is key" (Page 59). He investigates the affect of conflicts of interest on behavior (Chapter 3), particularly in medicine (Page 77). He shows us that (on average) many professionals find themselves in conflict situations and fool themselves about not falling into unethical behavior - think of a doctor's decision process when it comes to prescribing a marginal test procedure where he/she owns the expensive testing equipment (most likely to prescribe the test) versus when the procedure would be performed by an independent lab (less likely, Page 70). And when these professionals know their clients well, when they find themselves being most trusted, the worst conflicts tend to arise -- and we are often not cognizant of the dishonesty. We also learn that once cheating starts it tends to gain momentum and become contagious (Chapter 8). Prof. Ariely shows us that 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" (page 172). He does show us that cheating can have an upside, describing how doctors and nurses lied to him repeatedly when, as a teenager, he was in the process of recovering from severe burns over 70 percent of this body that almost killed him. If they had told him the honest truth about the challenges he was facing, he might not have gathered the strength to go on; the pain was real, but caregiver altruistic dishonesty eased his suffering (Page 159).

In relating these findings to System 1 and System 2 thinking, and then on to individual differences and coaching interventions, recall from the opening paragraph that Prof. Ariely relies on social science research "averages" in reaching his conclusions. In each of the experiments, he collects data on an individual's reaction to the stimulus generated for the purpose of the experiment, aggregates the data, and analyzes it statistically in looking for group trends and tendencies. He assembles his research subject pool to control for basic social science parameters, typically age, gender, and intelligence. On this basis, he persuasively argues the research subject reactions are not based (solely) on rationale System 2 thinking, as economic models might predict. Influenced by neuroscience findings, at CIMBA we have long asserted that an individual's reaction to such emotional events is most influenced first by the situation, and then by the individual's (a) core basic beliefs, values, and goals; (b) self-regulatory ability; (c) internal emotional intensity (SCARF profile); (d) rate of emotional recovery (emotional resilience); (e) rate at which emotion and emotion regulation use brain energy (depletion rate); and, (f) present state of emotional management (something we refer internally as an individual's "V-Code" - sleep, exercise, diet, stress, time-in and other fundamental elements of a "Healthy Mind Platter." Note that several factors making up an individual's V-Code are measured in our development system by using a clever device called Fitbit®, which we highly recommend).

Because System 1 operates automatically and cannot be turned off at will, errors of intuitive thought are often difficult to prevent or avoid; System 2 may have no clue to the error or may even have endorsed it in the past (Which, according to Kahneman causes it to viewed by System 1 as a belief or habit). In these cases, thinking errors could be prevented by enhanced monitoring and effortful activity by System 2 - but such an approach would be too slow and energy consuming. As reflected in the CIMBA approach to effective coaching interventions, it is far more effective to adopt a two-part strategy:

(1)  First, learn to recognize situations in which for you such thinking errors are much more likely, particularly those situations where the stakes are higher (that is, make yourself more self-aware); and,

(2)  Second, strengthen your System 2 self-regulatory ability through effective, purposeful mindfulness practice (Driven by an active mindfulness practice, an engaged, observant System 2's self-regulatory ability assists you in staying vigilant against both the intentional efforts of others as well as your own mindless tendency to jump to conclusions or to be adversely influenced by Deceptive Brain Messages).

Prof. Ariely is clearly comfortable with the first part of this System 1 vs. System 2 strategic approach in principle, asserting as a solution after several experiments the importance of being aware, of improving self-awareness (Pages 37, 41, 52, 95, 115, 131, 140, 189, 240, and 247 among others). In this sense, he recognizes explicitly the importance of clear basic beliefs, values and goals (page 39-52; 249-54); internal emotional intensity as it relates to motivating social awareness and the need to belong (Chapter 8, "Cheating as an Infection;" Chapter 9, "Collaborative Cheating"); and, lowered rates of emotional recovery, depletion, and V-Codes (Chapter 4, "Why We Blow It When We are Tired"). But in our development system, key questions still remain, the answers to which are fundamental to a successful coaching intervention: Who are these "cheaters;" Are there systematic, measureable characteristics that define them; Can we identify those characteristics in advance and thereby predict the likelihood of dishonesty in defined situations; and, Can we develop coaching strategies to both assist them in becoming more self-aware of those situations and develop the self-regulatory ability to move beyond the detrimental weight of those characteristics?

While explicitly dismissing the usefulness of ethics courses in making individuals more honest (Page 43, and particularly the discussion at page 248 - "Any casual observation of the state of dishonesty in the world will quickly realize that such measure don't get the job done."), he does seem to implicitly sense the importance of the second part of the System 1 vs. System 2 strategy, improving self-regulatory ability. Surprisingly, though, it is the one emotional reaction area he fails to address explicitly (although the cites and discusses Baumeister's work in the area with favor in the book - Page 112), and the one we have found to be unquestionably the most important. Consider the following:

[U]nderstanding how slippery slopes operate can direct us to pay more attention to early cases of [dishonesty] transgressions and help us apply the brakes before it's too late. (At page 131)  

Of course, the "brakes" to which he refers is in Prof. Matt Lieberman words, "the brain's braking system," the right and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, our self-regulatory ability. Again, the brain's breaking system is controlled at the behest of System 2 thinking. The relative strength of your self-regulatory ability defines your self-discipline, impulse control, and willpower - literally, your ability to change behavior in both the short and the long-runs. An engaged, observant System 2 activates as necessary the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (among other brain functions), which we refer to in our development system as the "Assessment Center." It is the brain's primary self-regulatory circuitry, inhibits or diminishes System 1 emotional reactions, overrides the "Habit Center" (basal ganglia), and facilitates voluntary emotional management -- but it is effortful and energy demanding. In fact, Kahneman notes that due to the "law of least effort" the brain will very quickly convert consistent System 2 responses (and non-responses) into System 1 habitual reactions (good or bad habits, the brain does not differentiate) as the brain moves to minimize energy consumption and effort in defined situations (and those it perceives as being similar).

Are there additional parallels between Prof. Ariely's work and System 1 vs. System thinking? Scrutiny of the neuroscience literature on emotion regulation, self-regulation, and mindfulness supports the notion that individuals with low self-regulatory ability are likely to be more creative, more self-deceptive, and, by pulling in Prof. Ariely's work within this research, more dishonest with themselves and others. They are more likely to say they do not need additional training ("I am already in the top 10 percent" - despite evidence to the contrary), a coach, or a mentor. They are more likely to express their emotions and opinions, and to be the "office bully." As a consequence, they are more likely to generate social contagions through their behavior among higher self-regulatory individuals who, ignorant of low self-regulatory characteristics, are more likely to be far more adaptable and flexible in efforts to make the workplace (and other environments) functional. That is, low self-regulatory individuals can be culture-killers in the workplace. While changing an individual's IQ is not likely, there is clear evidence we can change self-regulatory ability. By understanding an individual's System 1 and System 2 shortcomings from a neuroscience perspective, focusing coaching interventions on those shortcomings, measuring the success of those interventions through observed behavior improvements and through specially-designed mental exercises driven by data (for example, like those provided by My Brain Solutions), we can meaningfully and purposefully impact an individual's productivity, creativity, and well-being. That is, neuroscience can make a prescriptive impact on people well beyond merely improving honesty in the workplace.